Ralph de Diceto (c) An. 1175. Col. 597.21 observes that our Kings did in such sort follow the Ecclesiastical Canons as they had a care to Conserve their own Rights hence it is that in the Saxon Laws we find the Kings extending their Commands to the enjoyning of those things in Ecclesiastical matters which by Canons of Councils were agreed to as Sir Roger (a) Cap. 5. N. 6. Twisden hath summed up in Ten particulars ☞ In one of which King Alfred (b) L. L. Aluredi C. 8. pa. 25. Jourval c. 9. Coll. 823. The Decrees of such Councils must be well obeyed when Kings were present reserves to himself the liberty of dispensing event with the Marriage of Nuns In another it appears that the Kings caused the Clergy of their Kingdom to meet in Council and sometimes presided themselves in them tho' the Popes Legat were present as may be seen in Sir Henry Spelmans Councils Page 292.293.189 pasim Ibid. vita Lanfranci C. 6. Col. 1. pa. 7. Florent Wigorn. 1070. p. 434. ☞ It is likewise certain that before (c) Twisden Vindica c. 5. N. 7. p. 99. William the Conquerors time the English Bishops had no Ordinary Courts distinguished from the Lay but both Secular and Ecclesiastical Magistrates sat and Judged together but he finding these proceedings (d) Non bene neque secundum Sanctorum Canonum praeceta not good nor according to the precept of the Holy Canons did by his Charter make a distinction of the Courts that such as were Convented by the Bishop should not Answer according (e) Non secundum hundred sed secundum Canones Episcopales Leges c. to the Hundred but according to the Canons and Episcopal Laws So that in this appears the Foundation of the Tryals in Ecclesiastical Courts according to the Ecclesiastical Laws which yet by our Lawyers are called the Kings Laws §. 11. The Kings Secular Courts determined what matters were to be tryed in Ecclesiastical Courts And it further appears that in Controversies betwixt parties where it hath been disputable whether the Tryal of them appertained to the Kings Ecclesiastical or Secular Courts The Kings Secular Courts have ever been Judges to which Court the cause did belong therefore Bracton (f) Lib. 5. de exceptionib cap. 15. sect 3. fol. 412. a. saith Judex Ecclesiasticus cum prohibitionem a Rege susceperit supersedere debet in omni casu saltem donec constiterit in Curia Regis ad quam pertineat Jurisdictio quia si Judex Ecclesiasticus aestimare possit an sua essec Jurisdictio in omni casu indifferenter procederet non obstunte Regiâ prohibitione Which is agreeable to what we find King William the First did in a Council at Illibon in Normandy Anno 1080. when by the advice of both the States Ecclesiastic and Secular he did settle many particulars to belong to the Cognizance of the Spiritual Judges and concludes that if any thing were further claimed by them they should not enter upon it (a) Donec in Curia Regis monstrent quod Episcopi inde habere debeant till they had shewed in the Court of the King that the Bishops thereupon ought to have it belong to them Whoever desires to be satisfied in the Jurisdiction of the Kings of England in Ecclesiastical matters may sind an Abridgment of them in Sir Roger Twisden (b) Vindicat. c. 5. N. 17. enforced with sufficient Testimonies out of our most Authentic Historians in Eighteen particulars §. 12. The application of these Historical Collections ☞ Upon the whole matter we may conclude that what was done by Archiepiscopal or Episcopal Visitation of the University was by the Kings Authority so that tho' we find not that by Immediate Commission the Kings of England Visited before King Henry the Eighth's time yet we have sufficient grounds to Judge that whatever was done was by the Kings power and Authority Therefore Sir Edward (c) Cawdryes Case 5 Reports p. 8. b. How the Temporal and Ecclesiastical Courts were subordinate to the King according to the Opinion of our Modern Lawyers Cooke lays it down for a Rule that as in Temporal Causes the King by the Mouth of the Judges in his Courts of Justice doth Judge and determin the same by the Temporal Laws of England so in Causes Ecclesiastical and Spiritual by his Ecclesiastical Judges according to the Ecclesiastical Laws of the Realm and that so many of the Ecclesiastical Laws as were proved approved and allowed here by and with General Consent are aptly and rightly called the Kings Ecclesiastical Laws of England and whosoever denyeth this denyeth the King to have full and plenary power to deliver Justice in all Cases to all his Subjects without which he were not a compleat Monarch or head of the whole and entire Body of the Realm according to the words of the Statute (d) Stat. 24 H. 8. c. 12. The King the Fountain of Justice that the Kingly Head of this Body Politic is Instituted and furnished with plenary whole and intire Power Preheminence Authority Prerogative and Jurisidiction to render and yield Justice and final determination to all manner of Folke Resiants or Subjects within the Realm in all causes matters debates and contentions happening to occur insurge or begin within the limits thereof c. §. 13. In what particulars our Kings claimed not Ecclesiastical Administration It must be likewise considered that whatever power our Kings Exercised in Ecclesiastical Affairs they never claimed any in those things the School men call Ordinis as the Administration of Sacraments Celebrating Divine Offices c. but in that which is called Jurisdictionis and that being either Internal where the Divine by persuasion wholsom Instructions Ghostly Counsel and the like convinceth the Conscience This is Sir Roger Twisdens observation whereby it is obedient or External where the Church in Foro exteriori compels the Christians obedience As to the first and second none of our Kings either before or since the Reformation took upon them at all to medle either by assuming to themselves a power of Preaching Teaching Binding or loosing in foro Animae Administring the Holy Sacraments Conferring Orders c. But they took upon them the Ordering of such things as were of outward Policy of the Church as what Men were fit to Exercise them and what subjection the Subjects should yield to Decrees and Constitutions made abroad and what Doctrins were publicly to be Taught which might conduce to the quiet Peace and Tranquility of the Subject and their living in Piety and Vertue §. 14. How the Popes obtained greater powers after the Canon Laws were owned here It is further to be noted that the Popes power was enlarged after the Canon Law was received more than it had been before but if we believe Walsingham (a) Walsingham ad Ann. 1297. it was not Read in our Universities publicly till the 25th of Edward the First
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 no * It 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 SATVRDAY Octob. 22d VVHo being met and such Books brought in Dr. Hough being called in The words of the Account are their Lordships proceeded and proposed these two Questions to Dr. Hough whether he was willing c. the Bishop of Chester told him Doctor here is a Sentence under Seal before us of the Kings Commissioners for Visiting the Universities by which the Election to the Presidentship of Magdalen College is declared Null and Void which you heard Yesterday Read and of which you Confess your self to have Legal notice before by being fixed upon the Doors This Sentence and the Authority by which it was passed you have contemned and in contempt thereof have kept Possession of the Lodgings and the Office of President to this day to the great contempt and dishonor of the King and his Authority Are you yet willing upon better and second thoughts to submit to the Sentence passed by their Lordships against you or not To which he Answered that the Decree of the Commissioners is a perfect Nullity from beginning to End as to what relates to him he having never been Cited nor ever appeared before them either in his Person or Proxy Besides his Cause it self was never before them Their Lordships never enquiring or asking one question concerning the Legality or Statutableness of the Election These Arguments will particularly be answered for which reason he is informed that That Decree was of no validity against him according to the Methods of the Civil Laws but if it had he was possessed of a Freehold according to the Laws of England and Statutes of the Society having been Elected as Unanimously and with as much Formality as any of his Predecessors Presidents of the said College and afterwards Admitted by the Bishop of Winchester their Visitor as the Statutes of the College required and therefore he could not submit to that Sentence because he thought he could not be deprived of his Freehold but by Course of Law in Westminster-Hall or by being some way Incapacitated according to the Founders Statutes which are Confirmed by King James the First Second Question put to Dr. Hough was whether he would deliver up the Keys and Lodgings as by a Clause in the Statutes of Admission he is tyed to do to the use of the President who hath the Kings Letters Mandatory to be Admitted into that Office. To which he Answered that there is not neither can there be any President whilst he Lives and obeys the Laws of the Land and the Statutes of the place and therefore doth not think it reasonable to give up his Right nor the Keys and his Lodgings now demanded of him He takes the Bishop of Winchester to be his Ordinary Visitor and yet he would deny him the Keys he takes the King to be his Extraordinary Visitor as he believes but it had been controverted whether the King had Power to Visit as in Coveny's Case 4 o. Eliz. and looked upon their Lordships Commanding it to be a requiring him to deliver up his Office. He said he had appeared before their Lordships as Judges and that he now Addressed himself to them as Men of Honor and Gentlemen and did beseech them to represent him as Dutiful to His Majesty to the last degree as he always will be where his Conscience permits to the last Moment of his Life and when he is Dispossest here he hopes they will intercede that he may no longer lie under His Majesties displeasure or be frowned upon by his Prince which would be the greatest affliction that could befall him in this World. Then their Lordships admonish'd him three times to depart peaceably from the Presidents Lodgings and to Act no more as President or pretended President of the College in Contempt of the King and his Authority which he refusing to do Mr. Lee Proctor to the Lords accused his Contumacy and prayed the Judgment of the Court The words of the Account are then the Lords proceeded to give Judgment against him viz. That he forth with c. which was thus pronounced The Lords Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes and for Visiting the Universities have Decreed the Presidents place of this College to be Null and Void Therefore we by the Authority to us committed do Order and Command you Dr. Hough forthwith to quit all pretensions to the said Office upon which they Ordered his Name to be struck out of the Buttry-Book which was accordingly done and admonished the Fellows and other Members of the Society no longer to own him as their President Then the Kings Mandate for Admitting the Bishop of Oxford was Read See for this sect 2. § 3. and they were then Ordered to withdraw and being soon after called in again the Question was put to the Fellows singly one by one whether they would Admit the Bishop of Oxford their President according to the Kings Mandate Dr. Pudsey said he would submit to the King and would be by but could not Act being Burser Dr. Thomas Smith replyed From Dr. Smiths Diary See his other Answer §. 10. My Lords Commissioners if it be the Kings pleasure to make the Bishop of Oxford President of this College and your Lordships Acting by that Authority have declared and made him such I do because I must submit I make no opposition Mr. Charnock said he was ready to obey the Kings Mandate all the rest of the Fellows refused to receive him as President as being against their Statutes and Oaths and that which would make them guilty of Perjury All whose Verbal Answers were taken in Writing by the Lords Commissioners and their Lordships after some time said if you think we have not taken the Answer right put them in Writing
LICENS'D By COMMAND this 23d of July 1688. JA. VERNON THE KING'S Visitatorial Power ASSERTED BEING An Impartial Relation of the late Visitation of St. Mary Magdalen College in Oxford As likewise an Historical Account of several Visitations of the Universities and particular Colleges Together with some necessary Remarks upon the Kings Authority in Ecclesiastical Causes according to the Laws and usages of this Realm By NATHANIEL JOHNSTON Doctor in Physic Fellow of His Majesties College of Physicians in London Pereunte Obsequio etiam Imperium Intercidit Tacitus 1 Histor LONDON Printed by Henry Hills Printer to the King 's Most Excellent Majesty for His Houshold and Chappel And are sold at his Printing-house on the Ditch-side in Black-Fryers 1688. TO THE Judicious Reader AS soon as His Majesty had been pleased to lay His Commands upon me to Collect materials for this Subject I could not but reflect that it was to Treat of a matter that I knew not any had Writ upon before and of such a largeness that it takes in not only the Case of Magdalen College but regards all other Corporations and Societies of that Constitution and spreads it self into some branches of the Prerogative Royal Wherefore the nature of the Thing requires a Treatise of me not altogether unsuitable to the Dignity of the persons concerned viz. The King and the Universities which would induce persons of all Ranks to peruse it who desire satisfaction in a matter of such importance both to the Prince and Subject This suggested to me a necessity of enquiring into Records of preceding ages and to render the Work at least a Collection of various instances in several Cases of Visitations Therefore finding no compleat History of any Visitation of our Universities except that of the long Parliament I judged it necessary to give an Impartial account of the proceedings from the Kings Mandate for Mr. Farmer to the close of the Visitations by the Lords Commissioners whereby this and after ages might have an Authentic Precedent if any occasion should happen of this kind and that people concerned might know their Boundaries and in this part I followed the Registers Original Papers Authentic Copies of Letters and Orders or the Diaries accounts of such as were present and actors in the disquisition and in this particular I have used as much diligence as I could not to be imposed upon and had finished most of this before the Oxford Relation was Printed and wherein I differ from that I have done it upon the best Intelligence I could obtain After the finishing of this I judged it not improper before I entred upon Answering the Objections I found urged by the Vice-President and Fellows of St. Mary Magdalen College to clear the Kings Prerogative over the Universities in making and Abrogating their Statutes or dispensing with them and placing or dis placing of their Members which obliged me to consider the matter not only in General but also to descend to many particulars and shew who by the Kings Authority or sufferance have exercised the like Authority In which I have endeavored to follow the most approved Authors and surest Records I have the rather enlarged upon this head that I might afford variety of Cases whereby the distinct claims of Right of Visitation might be Illustrated and this Tract might be a Repertory whereby upon emergences the Original Records might be enquired after If some may judge me too tedious I desire them to consider that it was not enough to clear the point of St. Mary Magdalen College but likewise to discover in what other Cases the Kings of England had exerted their Prerogatives The Contemplation of this led me to touch tho' with a trembling hand the Regalia of our Kings and look into the Laws and usages of former times and in what sort the Soveraignty and Supremacy of our Kings in matters of Ecclesiastical cognizance are declared by the Laws in being In which part I treat of the Kings Authority abstractedly from Doctrinal Religion This I the rather have done that the Subjects of all conditions may observe how great the Authority and Prerogative of the King is in dispensing with University and College Statutes since by the plain and direct Laws that Assert the Kings Right in opposition to all Foreign powers his Supremacy is so Established in Ecclesiastical matters and causes that it is applicable to other purposes than at the first view may appear obvious which I leave to the discussion of those better versed in the Laws than I shall ever presume to be Nevertheless I hope in the treating of this subject it will be owned that I have Introduced no Novelty but Copy'd what is found in History or the public Records and brought to light a Prerogative inseparable from the Royal State of our Kings which some for want of consulting the same have not so well discerned It is to caution the Heads and Fellows of our most eminent Universities not to contend with their Sovereign that I have so copiously produced Instances of the practice of former times and have so largely treated of them before and since the Reformation It was for this end solely and not in the least to erect Trophies for any Victory over the unfortunate that I have pointed out these Sea-marks that others may avoid dashing themselves against the Rock upon which the British Monarchy is so firmly placed that no Tempests of open Rebellion or the highest swelling Seas much less any single Billow can be able to shake It is far from my Intention in this to enter into any dispute about the limits of Ecclesiastical or Secular power It is sufficient that I shew it in some particulars of known practice without examining the grounds any more than as declared by the positive Laws or practice of the respective Sovereigns I know some may look upon this as a matter treated of ex superabundanti yet I thought my self obliged so far to enter into a dissertation upon it as I might thereby make it appear that by the extensiveness of the Sovereignty Universities much more private Colleges both which the Law accounts among the Creatures of the Crown must own a subjection of themselves and their private Statutes to the King as Supreme Neither hath it been any desire to render the Kings Prerogative greater than the Laws and usages of our Kings do manifest that I have shewn how it hath been insisted upon even against some exemptions of the Apostolic See or to Establish any Paradox but only to Assert the just Rights of the Crown at least according to my Reading and do with all deference submit what I have composed to the Judgment of the Learned in our Laws But to leave this I desire the Candid Reader will peruse the Contents of the Book in the following Pages before he enter upon the whole whereby he may see the connexion and sequences of the matter and he must not expect that those Contents are exactly according to the
at St. Mary Magdalen College MR. Thomas Atterbury Messenger was sent with this Order to the College and he returns Answer June the 24th that he came thither that day and enquired for Dr. Pudsey who he understood was Senior Fellow upon the place and told him that he was directed by the Lords Commissioners to apply himself to him as Senior Fellow and desired him to Assemble the rest of the Fellows that he might deliver to them the Orders from the said Lords Dr. Pudsey reply'd That he did not Act as Senior Fellow for that he was made Burser but would endeavor to get him an Answer at Five a Clock as soon as Prayers were done at which time he told him that he had no power to Assemble the Fellows neither could he any ways do it so long as there was a President on the place the Fellows had no Authority to Act There being two or three Fellows with this Doctor one of them asked Mr. Atterbury to see the Orders to which he Answered If he with Dr. Pudsey and the rest would receive them he would deliver them to them but would not Read them So he shewed them the Indorsment that they were directed to them and offered to deliver them to them But they refused saying they had no Authority to call an Assembly neither could they do it therefore it was not fit they should receive them and being desired to tell him if that was their final Answer they said yes so he told Dr. Pudsey he must give a speedy Answer to the Register Mr. Bridgman to whom he sends this account and adds that the Doctor treated him with very good words and Invited him to Dine with them while he stayed in Town Thus far Mr. Atterbury's Letter I now proceed to what was done next §. 7. The Orders of the Lords concerning Mr. Farmer upon the Reading his defence At a Court held c. the 1st day of July 1687. Mr. Anthony Farmer gave in his Answer to the Complaint exhibited against him by the Fellows of Magdalen College which was Read and the Court Ordered to hear the matter at their next meeting when all parties concerned are required to Attend and that Compulsories should be granted to both sides for Witnesses e Registro The Form whereof was as followeth By His Majesties Ecclesiastical Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes c. YOu and either of you are hereby required forthwith to Cite and Summon James Fayrer Master of Arts of Magdalen College c. to appear personally before us in the Council Chamber Friday the 29th day of July Instant at Four of the Clock in the Afternoon then and there by vertue of this Citation as Witnesses to give their Testimonies in the matter depending before us betwixt the Fellows of St. Mary Magdalens College in Oxford and one Mr. Anthony Farmer under pain of the Law and Contempt thereof And of the due execution hereof you are to certifie us the day and year aforesaid together with these presents Given under our Seal the 1st day of July 1687. To Thomas Atterbury and Robert Eddows Or either of them July the 1st Their Lordships having been informed Out of the Register that their foresaid Order of June the 22d had not been obeyed Ordered the following Citation By His Majesties Commissioners c. WHereas We thought fit by our Order of the 22d of June last Citation of the Fellows for disobeying the former Order to enjoyn and require the Fellows of St. Mary Magdalen College in the University of Oxford to cause our Orders for the vacating the Election made by them of Mr. John Hough to be President of the said College and for Suspending Dr. Charles Aldworth from being Vice-President and Dr. Henry Fairfax from his Fellowship in the same to be affixed on the Gates of the said College and whereas we are given to understand that our said Order hath not been obeyed by the said Fellows You and either of you are hereby required to Cite and Summon the said Fellows of St. Mary Magdalen College requiring them to appear before Us in the Council Chamber at Whitehall upon Friday the 29th Instant at Four in the Afternoon to Answer the said Contempt and of the due execution hereof you are to certifie Us then and there Given under our Seal the first day of July 1687. Superscribed To Thomas Atterbury and Robert Eddows Or either of them §. 8. During this interim before the Fellows appeared before the Lords Commissioners the King according to former Presidents sends this following Inhibitory Mandate to the Fellows of St. Mary Magdalen College JAMES R. TRusty and Well-beloved Inhibitions sent to the Fellows neither to Elect nor Admit any Fellow or Demy till the Kings further pleasure was known which is according to former Presidents as in due place will be shown We Greet you well whereas We are informed that a Sentence or Decree lately made by Our Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Affairs touching an Election in that Our College hath not been obeyed Our will and pleasure is that no Election or Admission be made of any person or persons whatsoever to any Fellowship Demyship or other place or Office in our said College until We shall signifie Our further pleasure any Statute Custom or Constitution to the contrary notwithstanding And so expecting your ready obedience herein We bid you farewell Given at our Court at Windsor the 18th day of July 1687. In the third Year of our Reign By His Majesties Command Sunderland P. Superscribed To Our Trusty and Well-beloved the Fellows of St. Mary Magdalens College in Our Vniversity of Oxford §. 9. Order to Mr. Atterbury c. to affix the Decree concerning Mr. Hough Dr. Aldworth and Dr. Fairfax upon the College Gates The next Court was held the 29th day of July At which time I do not find that the Fellows of St. Mary Magdalen College did exhibit their Answer why they obeyed not the Order of the Lords Commissioners of the 22d of June nor that their Lordships required it but I find in the Register this following Order to affix the Sentence on the College Gates By His Majesties Commissioners c. WHereas We have thought fit to declare pronounce and decree Out of the Register that the Election made of Mr. John Hough Batchellor in Divinity to be President of St. Mary Magdalen College in the University of Oxford is void and to amove the said Mr. John Hough from the place of President of the said College And whereas We have also thought fit to Suspend Dr. Charles Aldworth from being Vice-President of the same and Dr. Henry Fairfax from his Fellowship in the said College you and either of you are hereby required to cause our Orders Vacating the said Election and Suspending the said Dr. Aldworth and Dr. Fairfax Copies of which under our Seal are hereunto Annexed to be affixed on the Gates of the said College to the end that due notice may be taken
Chester Sir Robert Wright Lord Chief Justice of the Kings Bench and Sir Thomas Jenner one of the Barons of the Court of Exchequer with particular Power to them or any two of them to visit St. Mary Magdalen College in the University of Oxford the Commissioners thought fit to meet at the Council Chamber this day being the 17th of Ooctober 1687. The Commission was Read and the same Officers confirmed as before The Lords Commissioners for Visiting Magdalen College agreed upon the following Citation in Order to their Visitation By Thomas Lord Bishop of Chester Sir Robert Wright Knight Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench and Sir Thomas Jenner Knight one of the Barons of His Majesties Court of Exchequer His Majesties Commissioners amongst others for Ecclesiastical Causes and for the Visitation of the Vniversities and all Cathedral and Collegiate Churches Colleges Grammar-Schools Hospitals and other the like Incorporations or Foundations and Societies and particularly Authorized and Impowered by His Majesties Letters Patents to Visit St. Mary Magdalen College in the Vniversity of Oxford c. YOu and either of you are hereby required forthwith to Cite and Summon Mr. John Hough the pretended President and also the Fellows and all other the Schollars and Members of the said College of St. Mary Magdalen in the said University of Oxford to appear before Us in the Chappel of the said College on Friday next being the 21st day of this Instant October at Nine of the Clock in the Morning to undergo our Visitation and further to Answer to such matters as shall then and there be objected against them Intimating thereby and we do hereby Intimate unto them and every one of them that We Intend at the same time and place to proceed in our said Visitation the absence or contempt of him the said pretended President or the said Fellows Schollars or other Members of the said College or any of them to the contrary notwithstanding And of the due Execution hereof you are to certifie us at the time and place aforesaid Given under the Seal which we in this behalf use the 17th day of October 1687. Subscribed To Thomas Atterbury and Robert Eddows Or either of them On Wednesday October the 19th the Citation was fixed on the College and Chappel Doors and on Thursday the Commissioners entred attended by the three Troops of Horse that Quartred in the Town §. 2. The Proceedings of the Lords Commissioners at Oxford on Friday morning Octo. 21. 1687. I shall from the Register Original Papers the Bishop of Chesters notes or the Printed Relation give a Faithful account of the First and Second Visitation FRIDAY Morning THe Lords Commissioners appointed by His Majesty under the Great Seal Out of the Register Note the reason why the Commissioners left the Chappel was by reason of the crowd and for that provision was not made for their sitting there for Visiting St. Mary Magdalen College in Oxford met on Friday Morning the 21st of October 1687. In the Chappel of the same College and Adjourned to the Hall where their Commission being Read their Lordships took upon them the Execution thereof and Ordered the Fellows Names to be called over And Dr. John Hough with several of the Fellows and Schollars appearing the Lord Bishop of Chester spoke to them upon the occasion of the Visitation as followeth Gentlemen IF he who provokes the King to Anger sins against his own Soul what a Complicated mischief is yours who have done and repeated it in such an Ingrateful and Indecent manner as you have done and upon such a trifling occasion You were the first and I hope will be the last who did ever thus undeservedly provoke him There is a great Respect and Reverence due to the Persons of Kings and besides the Contempt of his Authority in this Commission you were so unreasonably Valiant as to have none of those fears and jealousies about you which ought to possess all Subjects in their Princes Presence with a due veneration of his Soveraignty over them 'T is neither good nor safe for any sort of Men to be wiser than their Governors nor to dispute the Lawful Commands of their Superiors in such a licentious manner that if they sometimes obey for wrath they oftner disobey as they pretend for Conscience sake The King is God's Minister he receives his Authority from him and Governs for him here below and God resents all Indignities and injuries done to him as done to himself Now God hath set a Just and Gracious King over us who has obliged us in such a Princely manner as to puzle our Understandings as well as our Gratitude for he hath bound himself by his Sacred promise to support our Altars at which he does not Worship and in the first place to maintain our Bishops and Arch-Bishops and all the Members of the Church of England in their Rights Privileges and Endowments No doubt but he will do his own Religion all the Right and Service he can without unjust and cruel Methods which he utterly abhors and without wronging ours which is by Law Established and by his own Sacred and free promises which have been more than once renewed and repeated to us without our seeking or solliciting for them which we under some Princes might have been put to crave upon our bended Knees This is a most Royal and Voluntary Present the King hath made to his Subjects and calls for a suitable veneration from them notwithstanding the pretended Oxford Reasons which were Publish'd by whose means and endeavors you best know to obstruct it As if the King had not Thorns enough growing in his Kingdom without his Universities planting more Now a Prince so exceedingly tender of his Honor as he is so highly Just to all and so kind beyond example to his Loyal Subjects and Servants of what persuasion soever is one under whom you might have had all the ease satisfaction and security imaginable if you had not been notoriously wanting to your selves and under a vain pretence of acting for the preservation of our Religion you had not wilfully against all Reason and Religion expos'd it as much as in you lay to the greatest scandal and apparent dangers Imaginable Your disingenuous disobliging and petulant humor your obstinate and unreasonable stifness hath brought this present Visitation upon you and might justly have provoked His Majesty to have done those things in his displeasure which might have been more prejudicial to this and other Societies then you can easily imagin But tho' you have been very irregular in your provocations yet the King is resolved to be exactly Regular in his proceedings And accordingly as he is Supreme Ordinary of this Kingdom which is his Inherent Right of which he never can be divested and the unquestionable Visitor of all Colleges he hath delegated his Commissioners with full Power to proceed according to the just measures of the Ecclesiastical Laws and his Royal Prerogative against such offenders as shall
by one Simon a Monk of Walden ☞ It is likewise to be noted that altho' as I have shewn before the first Race of our Kings did frequently oppose some Rights the Popes claimed by Canons yet within the compass of an Hundred Years after the Conquest The Popes Jurisdiction in four particulars by the Canons or little more the Court of Rome obtained four great points of Jurisdiction First of sending Legats into England Secondly drawing Appeals to Rome Thirdly the Donation of Bishoprics and other Dignities in the Church Fourthly the Exemption of the Clergy from Secular Power Notwithstanding all which several Kings reassumed their Rights and Jurisdiction as occasions offered until the Reign of King Henry the Eighth as the Statutes of Mortmain Provisoes c. do manifest §. 15. The Kings Supremacy asserted by King Henry the 8th But in King Henry the Eighth's time a Total Rout was given to them all In the Twenty fourth of his Reign all Appeals to Rome were taken away and Established in the King and all Sentences made or to be made with England declared to be Authentical notwithstanding any Act from Rome The grounds of which Act are set forth in the (b) Stat. 24. H. 8. c. 12. Parag. 1. Preamble That this Realm of England is an Empire Governed by one Supreme Head and King The Lawyers Judge this Statute not to be Introductory of any new power but declatory of the Ancient Rights of the Crown having Dignity and Royal Estate of the Imperial Crown of the same unto whom a Body Politic Compact of all sorts and Degrees of People divided in Terms by Names of Spirituality and Temporality been bounden and own to bear next to God a Natural and humble obedience Then follows the plenitude of the Kings power as before I have related after which follows That the Body Spiritual hath power when any cause of the Law Divine happens to come in question or of Spiritual Learning This Statute was made to exclude the Popes power which King Henry the 8th rejected that it was declared Interpreted and shewed by that part of the Body Politic called the Spirituality without the Intermedling of any exterior person or persons by which the See of Rome is intended to be utterly Excluded and all Canons of Council likewise not allowed of by the King and his Laws to declare and detemin all such doubts and to Administer all such Offices and Duties as to their Rooms Spiritual doth appertain and the Laws Temporal for Tryal of property of Lands and Goods and for the Conservation of the people of this Realm in Unity and Peace without Rapine and Spoil was and yet is Administred Adjudged and Executed by sundry Judges and Ministers of the other part of the Body Politic called the Temporality and both the Authorities and Jurisdictions do conjoyn together in the due Administration of Justice the one to help the other By which it is easie to infer that this Statute exterminates and abolisheth all Forreign power so that whatever before this was Transacted here by the Popes or their Legats is now to be declared and determined by the King or such as by Law are appointed to hear and determin such matters under him §. 16. The Kings power of Visiting c. In the Twenty-sixth of the same King it is enacted That the King his Heirs and Successors shall have full Power and Authority from time to time to (a) Stat. 26 H. 8 c. 1. The Kings power of Visiting Visit Repress Redress Reform Order Correct Restrain and Amend all such Errors Heresies Abuses Offences Contempts and Enormities what soever they be which by any manner of Spiritual Authority or Jurisidiction ought or may lawfully be Reformed Repressed Ordered Redressed Corrected Restrained or Amended most to the pleasure of Almighty God the increase of Virtue in Christs Religion and for the Conservation of the Peace Unity and Tranquility of this Realm any Uses Customs Forreign Laws Forreign Authority Prescription or any thing or things to the contrary hereof notwithstanding It is known that the Title of Supreme Head of the Church given by that Act to the King his Heirs and Successors was Repealed by Queen Mary The Title of Supreme Head changed and was never restored but in the First of Queen Elizabeth all the powers given by the Act of 26 H. 8. are restored to the Crown under the Name of Supreme Governor For in the first of Queen Elizabeth such Ancient Jurisdictions over the Estate Ecclesiastical are restored to the Crown The restoring of Ancient Jurisdiction as by Queen Mary had been Repealed and all Foreign powers repugnant to the same are abolished I shall only insert what relates to the present matter Stat. 1. Eliz. Parag. 17. Parag. 17. It is thus Enacted That such Jurisdiction Privileges Superiorities and Prehemenences Spiritual and Ecclesiastical as by any Spiritual and Ecclesiastical power or Authority hath heretofore been or may lawfully be exercised or used for the Visitation of the Ecclesiastical State and persons and for Reformation Order and Correction of the same and all manner of Errors Heresies Schisms Abuses Offences Contempts and Enormities shall for ever by Authority of this present Parliament be Vnited and Annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm Parag. 18. The Kings power in Ecclesiastical matters And in the 18th Paragraph The Queen her Heirs and Successors shall have full Power and Authority by Letters Patents under the Great Seal to Assign Name and Authorize c. such person or persons c. as the Queen her Heirs and Successors shall think meet to exercise use occupy and execute under them all manner of Jurisdictions Privileges and Preheminences in any wise touching or concerning any Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction within their Dominions to Visit Reform Redress Order Correct and Amend all such Errors Heresies Schisms Abuses Offences Contempts and Enormities whatsoever which by any manner of Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Power Authority or Jurisdiction can or may lawfully be Reformed Ordered Redressed Corrected Restrained or Amended c. Which seems to me 25 H. 8. c. 21. Parag. 20. The King Supreme Visitor notwithstanding Mr. Pryns exceptions clear by another Act of Parliament the words of which are Provided that the said Arch-Bishop of Canterbury or any other person or persons shall have no power or Authority by reason of this Act to Visit or Vex any Monasteries Abbys Priories Colleges Hospitals Houses or other places Religious which be or were Exempt before the making of this Act c. But that Redress Visitation and Confirmation shall be had by the Kings Highness his Heirs and Successors by Commission under the Great Seal to be directed to such persons as shall be appointed requisite for the same In fine whoever considers the Accumulated power of our Kings most own à fortiori that whatever Visitatorial Power was excercised before King H. 8ths time was by the Kings allowance and all since
account of these things from the Chancellor and Proctors intending to Deprive the (a) In Turri Scholar pix 2. N. 5.6 c. University of that Right And after some debate it was agreed that when he appointed a Visitation of the University if any Masters Scholars or any Members of the University were faulty in any thing which appertained to the Ecclesiastical Court they should be referred to the Chancellors Disquisition and Sentence but in greater faults or where any submitted not to the Chancellors Sentence their Names should be sent to the Bishop who promised not to promote them till they had satisfied the Chancellor However I find (b) Wood fol. 128. that the Regents and non-Regents in Convocation declared that the University was in full Possession of certain Rights and Customs there expressed And this I suppose they were (c) Wood fol. 125. b. encouraged to do because the Year foregoing viz. 1279. (d) Turri Scholar pix 2. M. 2. The Arch-Bishop of Canterbury defends the University against the Bishop of Lincoln John Peckam Arch-Bishop of Canterbury at a Synod held at Reading moved by reason of Complaints made to him by the Chancellor determined to defend the Privileges of the University and take the Goods of the University into his protection For which purpose he Ratified the Sentence of Suspension and Excommunication made by the Chancellor or his Deputy against the Scholars that were Delinquents or that Appealed to any Dioecesan Subject to the Archiepiscopal See. Hereupon * Wood. Ant. Fol. 127. a. The Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Visits Anno 1284. 11 E. 1. The Arch-Bishop Visited the University about the end of October and interposed his desires and Authority having Writ to the University not to be disobedient to their Dioecesan and to the Bishop of Lincoln to use moderation Oxoniensem Academiamjure Metropolitico Visitaturus adiit Parker Antiq. fol. 204. tho' I find the most of what he did was as his Predecessor Kilwardly had done to Condemn certain Erroneous Positions used to be maintained in the Schools by the the Minorite Fryers Preachers and opposed by the Augustins yet I find (a) Regist Peckham Richard Knapwell a Dominican Appealed to the Pope Anno 1285. Against the Arch-Bishops Sentence Anno 1287. (b) Si in jure contenderent vinci eos superari necesse esse presertim cum his quibus uterentur privilegiis a Jurisdictione Episcopali jure communi stabilita eximi nequaquam potuissent Antiq. Brit. p. 204. In the life of John Peckham Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Arch-Bishop Parker Writes that there was a contest betwixt the Bishop of Lincoln Oliver Sutton and the University of Oxon for some Years concerning the Jurisdiction of the Bishop over the Scholars in which when the Arch-Bishop understood the Cause of the Scholars to be feeble and not able to be Defended by the Laws he Writ to them that if they continued the Suit they should undoubtedly be overcome while they no ways could exempt the privileges they used from the Episcopal Jurisdiction Established by Common Law that is the universally received Canons By which we may Judge The University subject to several Visitations that the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury allowed the Ordinary Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Lincoln in whose power Oxford then was yet this hinders not but that they might be subject to other Superior Visitations as the Kings or the Popes Legates §. 7. Anno 1301.30 E. 1. Pope Boniface the Eighth the 11th of the Ides of June 1 o. Pontificatus * A. fol. 95. Twynus lib. 3. sect 19. Pope Boniface the 8th grants several privileges and exempts the University from Archiepiscopal and Episcopal Visitation grants to the Chancellor Masters Doctors and Scholars of the University of Oxford a Bull wherein is expressed that they had set forth in their Petition that several Kings of England of Famous Memory had granted them several privileges confirmed after by the present King and did humbly supplicate him that he would make to them the like Concession and by his Apostolical Dignity would vouchsafe to exempt them from all Jurisdiction and power of whatsoever Arch-Bishop Bishops and other Ordinary Judges which he grants and Confirms their Exemption made by Pope Innocent the Fourth Mr. Wood gives many Reasons why this Bull should rather be ascribed to Pope Boniface the Ninth Anno 1389. almost an Hundred Years after but I need not enter into that enquiry since all that I infer from this or any other account I give of this matter is that the Kings of England were the first bestowers of the Secular privileges at the least and the Popes of the Spiritual and Ecclesiastical and and what the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury as Metropolitan and the Bishop of Lincoln as Dioecesan did was by the Ordinary power of Visiting their Dioecess which the Canons gave them as I shall shew hereafter §. 9. The Dominicans make disturbances This leads me before I proceed further to give an account of a difference that happned betwixt the University and the Dominicans wherein it will appear wherein it will appear that matters relating to the Ordering the manner and Method of taking Degrees and Establishing and performing Exercises and Lectures were disposed by the King or the Pope The Case was this There having been a difference * Wood Antiq Oxon fol. 150. b. betwixt the Dominicans and the University of Paris about the Observance of Statutes of the University the Dominicans claiming an Exemption from it's Jurisdiction and denying that the Inceptors in Theology should ask Licence of the Chancellor or undergoe any Examination but from those of their own Family after an Appeal to Rome the cause was adjudged in favor of the Fryers which the University took so ill that they abstained from public Lectures The Dominicans in Oxford Anno 1211. Cavilled at the Statutes of that University Wood ut supra which for brevity sake I shall refer the Reader to peruse in my Author but generally they were about taking their Degrees in Philosophy and Divinity according to the prescripts of the Statutes and that they should be Admitted to no Degrees unless they Swore to the Observation of the Statutes and that they should perform some Exercise in the Schools and Preach in St. Maries whereas they would Execute them in their own Fraternity Upon which they fixed their Appeal the Chancellor having refused it upon the Gates of St. Maries Church Anno 1312. (a) Id. fol. 151â—â— Claus 2. Ed. 2. M. 12. The Dominicans apply themselves to the King who orders that they shall enjoy their privileges and that at the next Parliament the University by their Atturny shall Answer to their Allegations and bring their Charters and Privileges granted by the King or his Predecessors By which it appears how the King was their proper Judge and what is called Parliamentary Judgment was before the Lords as the Kings Supreme Court where differences among his Subjects
Bishop Writes another Letter to the President Informing him of the Receipt of the Secretaries Letter and adds I continue in my former Opinion towards them to wit that I would be loth that they should be Expelled if by any means the Statutes may relieve them and therefore I require you Mr. President and the Fellows that you choose none now at the next Election into their Rooms Here Obedience is payed to the Secretaries Letter of advice but that their places may stand in the same Terms as they are till I may hear what by you and them may further be spoken and considered by the Statutes to the end the Statutes may be truly observed and in the mean season no Men be of that Calling wronged I have willed them to absent themselves from the next Election for good consideration and my hopes is that none of that Society will move any troubles in or about the Election for any matter now hanging in doubt and not decided for that will breed slander to the Calling and danger to themselves so he orders the President and others to attend him the First of August about the Controversie Dated at Losely the same day and Year with the former I have not found among these Papers what was the Issue of this great Controversie but from what doth appear make these following remarks §. 8. The first observable from these short Statutes Upon the whole matter we may observe First That these strict and Indispensable Statutes in former times as well as now and in all times to come have and will Create great troubles in this College unless there be in the Sovereign a Visitatorial as well as Dispensing Power to Terminate endless Quarrels when as in this Case both Parties shall insist upon Grammatical and Literal sense of the Statutes and tho' the Bishop of Winchestr hath a power of Interpretation yet he is so tyed up to the Literal and Grammatical sense that he must unavoidably be put some times to great streights to determin matters ☞ Secondly However Rigidly the Statutes seem to be worded yet none can Judge that the Kings Dispensing Power can be restrained since neither the Founder could so bind either his Sovereign or the Pope nor could any of those bind their Successors by any Charter or Grant from such inhaerent Prerogatives annexed to their very Offices as I shall make clear when I come to consider the Arguments used concerning the force of these Statutes ☞ Therefore Thirdly I rather Judge that the Founder as Entaylers of Estates upon their Posterity to preserve nodosam Aeternitatem often do had a great desire that his Statutes should be perpetually observed but he could not be supposed to have such an over weening Opinion of his own prudence but that some Cases might happen whereby the Kings of England might Judge it convenient to alter them so that I Reasonably think the utmost of his design and hopes might be that the Society it self should not have the power of altering them but to Exclude the Sovereign by their Prerogative or Acts of Parliament to Suspend alter or Abrogate them was as much beyond his power to enjoyn as it was vanity in him to presume would thereby be effected Fourthly In the Secretaries Letter we may observe that he threatens the Queens Authority if the Bishop of Winchester their Visitor would not do the Fellows Justice and in the Bishops Letter to the President he Suspends all those on both parties from giving their Voices in the next Election which must be a force upon the Statutes for Election if the Bishop could not Interpret their Statutes but in the Literal and Grammatical sense for it is very probable it might be known by a Literal and Grammatical sense whether they were Fellows or not and if they were Fellows the President was as much bound by Oath to Admit their Voices as they obliged to give them and if the persons excepted against were no Fellows then the Five were unlawfully Expelled and so ought to have had Voices so that whether way soever the matter were determined I cannot conceive the Statutes or Interpretation was Literally and Grammatically observed which is the great plea of the Magdalen Fellows §. 9. The Case of Mr. Wilson I shall now shew that in the Controversie about the matter of the Head of a single College the Queen appointed Commissioners in a summary way to determin it Anno 1577. 19 Regni The Case was this A Controversie arising betwixt William Wilson Bachellor of Divinity In the Paper Office Bundel Anno 1577. 19 Eliz. and Thomas Bishop of Lincoln for that the Bishop refused to Admit him as chosen Rector of Lincoln College in Oxford the said Wilson Appealed to Edmund Grindal Arch-Bishop of Canterbury whose Official Dr. Bartholomew Clerk Admonished and Commanded the Bishop to Admit him and that the Bishops Commissioners should not under the pain of contempt do any thing to the prejudice of the said Wilson and the Arch-Bishop committed the determining the matter to certain Commissioners And Thomas Underhil Proctor of the University protested against the Commissioners of the Arch Bishop as not competent Judges and that the Examination of the matter belonged to the Chancellor of the University Upon all which The Queen takes the Cause out of all their hands and Grants a Commission to the Bishop of London and Rochester Sir Christopher Wray Knight Chief Baron of the Exchequer Sir William Cordel Knight Master of the Rolls Thomas Wilson John Gibson and John Griffith Doctors of Law upon the Petition of Robert Earl of Leycester Chancellor the Doctors Masters and Scholars of the University of her certain knowledge and sole motion and of the plenitude of her power Commanding them Eight Seven Six Four Three or Two of them calling the Reverend Bishop of Lincoln and William Wilson in person and all others by Law to be called in General Summarily and in plain Form without noise and Form of Tryals only seeing to the truth of the thing and the Fact Summarie in plano sinc strepitu forma Judicii and attending solely the aequity by all Manners and Forms by which they can better and more efficaciously proceed in and upon the Truth of the Premisses according to the Privileges and Exemptions of the said University and in the Cause or Causes aforesaid with their Incidents Emerging Depending Annexed or Connexed whatsoever and to determin it with a due end removing all Appeals and Complaints Nullity and Petition whatsoever and notwithstanding any Statutes Canons and Customs on the contrary published or the Law Suit depending causing all that in the premisses they shall Ordain to be firmly observed by Lawful remedies of the Law. Dated the 23d of April the 19th of her Reign 1557. By this it is apparent that the Kings of England may Suspend the power of the Arch Bishop and of the Chancellor and Local Visitor and by Commission appoint others in a Summary way not according
as to any whom the Vice-Chancellor Commands to Prison the Message be sent by the Beadle and he that refuseth shall be judged a breaker of the Peace and not to have any Appeal Thirdly A Command that the Delegates who at this present are in hand with the Statutes make hast and lay all other Statutes aside till they have drawn up two perfect and sufficient Statutes for Causes of Appeal the one in matters of Instances and those things which belong to the Chancellors Court the other for all kind of Appeals in other Causes whatsoever Anno 1632. E Collectionibus Dni Josephi Williamson olim Secretarii Regis primarii 8 Car. 1. The King Granted a Commission to the Earl of Holland then Chancellor of Cambridge the Arch-Bishop of York and Sir John Crook to Visit Pembrook Hall in Cambridge Anno 1634. 10 King Charles the First the King Impowered under the Great Seal the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury the Bishop of Rochester Sir Nathaniel Brent and others to Visit all Colleges Churches Hospitals c. and to make Laws and Statutes and this is expressed to be ex Suprema nostra Authoritate Regia by the Kings Supreme Authority I have not found any perfect Copies of these Visitations Wood Antiq. Oxon lib. 1. ad Annum 1633. but find in Mr. Wood that the Regulating of the University Statutes of Oxford which had been begun to be digested 1629. by Delegates appointed for that purpose were brought to a good forwardness Anno 1633. Arch-Bishop Laud then Chancellor being very Intent upon it When the same Arch-Bishop Visited the Universities by his Metropolitical Right he was opposed in it and the matter came to be heard before the King and Council of which I shall presently give an account and whoever desires a more full Relation may see the whole proceedings in the Annals of Mr. Francklane I shall only Insert here an extract of what I found in the Paper Office Relating to Merton College in Oxford which endeavored to decline the Arch-Bishops Authority in that Visitation the principal Reasons produced for it being these First Paper Office. Academica Miscellania Reasons why the King is Visitor of Merton College That King Henry the Third at the Foundation of the College Styles himself Patronus and consequently was Visitor in these Words Assignavit Maneria praedicta in suis manibus nomine nostro velut nomine Patroni Secondly The Ancientest Copy of Statutes is that which is Confirmed by the Bishop of Lincoln with a Reservation of such Privileges as belonged to the Dioecesan and is Confirmed by the Arch-Bishop as Provincial without any Reservation at all which in reason he would not have done if he had been Visitor Thirdly The Bishop of Lincoln sent Monition to the College Intimating a purpose to Visit From whom the Fellows Appealed to Rome Fourthly The Statutes of Walter Merton have the word Patronus often which cannot in reason be applyed to the Arch Bishop to whom he had no Relation but rather to the King whose Chaplain and Chancellor he was By this it appears what the Opinion of the Society was then that the King was Supreme Visitor and that the Bishop of Lincoln reserved his Dioecesan Right yet when he designed an extraordinary Visitation the Fellows Appealed to the Apostolic See as Supreme and I have cleared that what power that See had is now in the King according to the Laws §. 13. I now proceed to give an Account of King Charles the Firsts Order of Council the 12 Regni which hath been so much urged as if the King had Decreed in Council that none but the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury should Visit the Universities being Scituate in his Province but by the whole scope of the Record it appears that the Controversie was betwixt the Arch Bishop of Canterbury and the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge concerning the Right and Title of the Metropolitical Visitation of the same and that the Universities did pretend they were Exempt from the same and the matter in Dispute was referred to the King and his Royal Judgment and Sentence Litâ—que Controversia praedictis ad nos Judicium Sententiam nostram dâ—latis who calling the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Chancellor of the University of Oxford and the Earl of Holland Chancellor of Cambridge and others to come before him and his Council at Hampton-Court and having heard the Arguments of both the Parties Primo ante omnia per probationes Legitimas per concessionem utriusque partis nobis constabat nos jure Coronae nostrae Regni Augliae habuisse habere potestatem Visitandi Universitates praedictas quoties quandecunque nobis Successoribus nostris Visum fuerit c. First and before all things by Legal proof and the Confession of both Parties It appeared that the King in Right of his Crown of England hath had and hath the power of Visiting the said Universities as often and whensoever it should seem fit to the King and his Successors And that the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury by the Right of his Metropolitical Church hath had and hath power of Visiting all his Province of Canterbury in which the said Universities are Scituate Then follows that on the part of the Universities it was proposed that by certain Charters of the King and his Prdecessors and Papal Bulls they were Exempt and freed from all Visitation and Jurisdiction of the said Arch-Bishop and that Immunity by use of time they now enjoyed by prescription and on the Arch-Bishops part it was shewn that King Richard the Second and King Henry the Fourth had Judged the cause in favor of the Arch-Bishop as before related therefore the King Judgeth and determineth the Right of Visitation to belong to the Arch-Bishop and his Successors and his said Metropolitical Church Quibus unnibus per nos consideratis habitaque deliberatione cum praefatis Conciliariis nostris Judicavimus determinavimus c. and that not only once in his Life as in other Parts of his Province of Canterbury but that it might be Lawful to the Arch Bishop and his Successors after the first Metropolitical Visitation ended to Visit the said University by himself or his Commissaries The Arch-Bishops Visitation not allowed but by the Kings consent as often as it should appear necessary to the said Arch-Bishops on a reasonable and Lawful Cause first by the King and his Successors to be approved Dated the 30th of January 12 Car. 1. By this Record under the Broad Seal it is apparent first that there was a Controversie only betwixt the Arch-Bishop and the Universities whether the Arch-Bishop as their Metropolitan might Visit or they were Exempted from it Secondly That it was yeilded on all sides that the Kings Visitation was in no manner hereby disputed but it is positively asserted that the King and his Successors might Visit as often as they thought fit Thirdly That this Controversie was wholly determined and
the many Authorities might be brought to prove this more particularly pa. 129. to 137. here the curious may find several Collected by the Author of the Church of England's Behavior under a Roman Catholic King to which may be added the Act declaring the making and Consecrating of the Arch-Bishops and Bishops of this Realm to be good lawful and perfect The ground of which Statute was some Mens questioning whether the same were duly and orderly done according to Law or not The Act lays this for a Foundation Some Paragraphs in the Act 8 Eliz. c. 1. explained 26 H. 8.1 That King Henry the 8th was justly and rightly re-cognized and acknowledged to have the Supreme Power Jurisdiction Order Rule and Authority over all the Estate Ecclesiastical of the Realm and after Recites how the Kings and Queens of this Realm had full power and Authority by Letters Patents c. from time to time to Assign Name and Authorize such person or persons as they shall think meet and convenient to excercise use occupy and execute c. all manner of Jurisdictions Privileges Preheminences and Authorities in any wise touching or concerning Spiritual or Ecclesiastical power or Jurisdiction within this Realm c. Then follows That the Queen being lawfully Invested in the Imperial Crown of this Realm c. and having in her Majesties Order and disposition all the said Jurisdictions Powers and Authorities over the State Ecclesiastical and Temporal The Queens power in matters Ecclesiastical Supreme and absolute c. hath by her Supreme Authority at divers times sithence the beginning of her Reign caus'd divers and sundry grave and well Learned Men to be duly Elected Made and Consecrated Arch-Bishops and Bishops c. and after Fellows which is to be noted that in her Letters Patents for the same she hath not only used such words and Sentences as were accustomed to be used by King Henry the 8th and King Edw. the 6th in their Letters Patents made for such Causes but also hath used and put into her Letters Patents divers other general words and Sentences whereby her Highness by her Supreme Power and Authority hath dispensed with all Causes or doubts of any Imperfection or dis-ability that can or may in any wise be objected against the same c. so that to all those that will well consider of the effect and true intent of the said Laws and Statutes and the Supreme and absolute Authority of the Queens Highness and which she by her Majesties said Letters Patents hath used and put in Ure c. it is and may be very evident and apparent that no cause of simple ambiguity or doubt can or may justly be objected From hence it is easie to infer Considerable Inferences resulting from this Statute that there is in the Crown such a Supreme and absolute power in Ecclesiastical matters as the King may dispense with Acts of Parliament even in such a concern as Consecration Confirmation or Investing of any person c. Elected to the Office or Dignity of any Arch-Bishop or Bishop within this Realm for if there had been no variation by the Queens Letters Patents from the Form and Methods in the Acts of King * 25 H. 8. c. 20.5 6 E. 6. c. 16. sect 3. u. 4. Hen. the 8th or Edw. the 6th or that of Queen Elizabeth 1 o. Cap. 2. there had been no need of Inserting general words or dispensations in the Queens Letters Patents This Note Answers all that can be alleged concerning Mr. Farmers Incapacity Hence may be noted if the Queen could by her Supreme power and Authority thus dispense with dis-ability in Bishops much more may the King with dis-abilities occasioned by College Statutes which at pleasure he can alter and abolish But to return to the 25th of H. 8. Observations upon this Statute by Judge Hoberts Reports fol. 156. The power granted to the Arch-Bishop by the Act is in Ordinary matters such as usually the Pope or Prelates of the Realm dispensed with and in un-wonted Cases also which it seems by the Letter of the Act to be of vast extent so that my Lord Hobert saith that tho' it seems to give power over all Dispensations granted from Rome wonted and un-wonted and all dispensations generally Yet it must have construction such as were allowable and allowed by the Laws and Practice of this Realm for else it should make our Yoke heavier than before Yet I cannot conceive but the power may be extended further than the ordinary power the Popes or Prelates practised See the Statute sect 17.18 where greater power seems to be implyed worthy consideration otherwise there needed not to have been such provision made that in un-wonted Cases the King or Council should allow them and if the Arch-Bishop refused the King might appoint two Prelates or other persons to grant them and it is probable that this Act may be construed to other purposes than a Faculty-Office only §. 6. Some further observations upon the Statute 25 H. 8. c. 21. But I shall conclude this matter with the following Observations upon this Statute which I take to be clear and undeniable First That the Pope did here by his Bulls and Breves grant Dispensations in various Cases Erected Constituted and Visited Colleges and Abrogated their Statutes as I have cleared in the foregoing Chapter Secondly That by this Act the Popes General or Universal power and Authority in England in all Cases was Totally abolished and taken away from him as to the excercise of it Thirdly That some part only of that general power and Authority which was excercised by the Pope was by that Act Vested Lodged and Delegated in and to the Arch-Bishop as the dispensing power for Marriages Bastardy c. and other matters there expressed which was properly to be called the Popes ordinary power and was so lodged and delegated in the Arch-Bishop to save the King from trouble in such ordinary and common Cases but not to take away the Kings ordinary power Supremacy Fourthly That the Popes extraordinary power which he exercised in England is as well abolished here by this and other Acts as his ordinary power But so much of the Popes Authority and power either ordinary or extraordinary as was at any time excercised by him here in England and which is not by the said Statute Vested and Delegated in the Arch-Bishop is by a necessary Construction revived and revested in the King and re-united to the Crown by all those Acts which declare the Kings * See. Stat. 24 H. 8. cap. 12.25 H. 8. c. 20. 21.26 H. 8. c. 1. c. 3. c. 13.31 H. 8. cap. 9.37 H. 8. c. 17.1 Eliz. c. 1. c. 4.8 Eliz. c. 1. Supremacy yea tho' the Statutes had been silent therein for that the Crown by this and other Acts is entirely remitted and restored to all it 's Ancient Jurisdictions and Prerogatives exercised by the Popes from whence our Law
Books say it was Robbed or derived Because such powers being taken away from the Pope and such as had Authority under him and neither settled in any Court or person by the Statute can re-vest or re-sult to none other but the King as Supreme in all Ecclesiastical as well as Temporal Causes which by Sufferance or Usurpation as the Act saith the Pope had excercised Fifthly By the several Acts and Instances whereby the Kings of England since the making of this Act of the 25th King Henry the 8th have exerted their Supreme Authority it is clear that the Crowns Re-assumption of what the Pope had exercised hath been according to the Laws in being of which I now proceed to give Instances in the Kings dispensing with College Statutes of which I shall give some few in several Cases of many hundreds which are to be found in the Paper Office or Secretaries Books §. 7. An account of the Queens Mandate about Electing of a Master of St. Johns College in Cambridge The first Instance I think fit to Insert is as followeth The Course that was held in the last Election of the Mastership of St. Johns College in Cambridge First Bundel Ecclesiastic Universities Paper-Office The Statute of that College appointeth the Twelfth day after the Vacation to be the day of their Election and no other Secondly The greater part of the Fellows of the College were made for Mr. Alvey a Senior Fellow Thirdly The Lord Treasurer being Informed that Alvey was an unfit Man set down an Inhibition in the Queens Name to defer the Election which Inhibition was obeyed Fourthly The 12th day being passed and no further power left to the Fellows to Elect The Lord Treasurer sent a Letter the second time in the Queens Name Nominating Dr. Clayton and Dr. Stainton Commanding the Fellows to choose one of them and no other Fifthly By Authority of those Letters they choose Dr. Clayton By this proceeding it is manifest that the King may not only by a Mandate of Inhibition stay the Electors from making any choice but nominate the person to be Elected altho' by College Statutes the day of the Election and the Electors were appointed §. 8. The Bishop of Londons Testimony that the King hath dispensed with College Statutes Before I enter upon the particular Mandates I shall produce the Testimony of George Montague Bishop of London in his Letter a Copy of which the Honorable Sir Joseph Williamson afforded me out of the Paper-Office directed to Sir Edward Conway Principal Secretary of State as followeth Right Honorable THe Noble and Vertuous Lady the Lady Denbigh hath layed a Command upon me to deliver my knowledge whether the King hath at any time by his Letters dispensed with the Local Statutes of any College by a Non-obstante and upon a search it appears that his Majesty hath sent Letters of that nature to divers Colleges If this Information may promote her desires and give you satisfaction I shall be right glad and will ever remain London Decemb. 10th 1623. Your Honors Friend to Command and humble Servant Geo. London §. 9. A Mandate dispensing with Incapacities to receive Degrees I now proceed to give some Extracts of Mandates wherein the King dispenseth with College Statutes in one of which Dated December the 11th Anno 1624. the persons within named being some ways Incapacitated to take their respective Degrees were dispensed with as followeth Trusty and Well-beloved We Great you well In a Bundel Docketed Ecclesiastic Universities in the Paper-Office at Whitehall We are Graciously please of Our Royal Favor to Gabriel More Harrington Butler George Bursey and Michael Gilbert to advance them to such Degrees as they are capable of and well deserve by their Learning and diligent Studies tho' in some respects not qualified Therefore Our pleasure is that notwithstanding any Statute or other Ordinance to the contrary you forthwith Create Gabriel More a Dr. in Divinity and you also admit Harrington Butler and George Bursey to the Degree of Master of Arts and Michael Gibert Bachellor of Arts in such Form as is usual in like Case and these Letters shall be your Warrant In a Mandate for one William Morley to be a Schollar of the College of St. A Mandate for a Schollar of St. Mary Winton College without examination Mary of Winton College Oxon without Examination are these words and tho' we have a favorable Eye to your freedom that are the Electors yet in this Our so Extraordinary Recommendation We expect your Dutiful respects to this Our Princely Pleasure and Command so that this Our Will be not dis-appointed for any respet whatsoever Directed to Our Trusty and Well-belove Dr. Princock Warden of St. Mary Winton College in Our University of Oxford and Our Trusty and Well-beloved Dr. Love Warden of St. Mary Winton College near Winchester the under Warden School-Master of the College and two Posers of the Schollars for the Election In a Mandate Dated 3 o. Regni Caroli 1. A Mandate dispensing with the Incapacity by reason of the County For one Gregory Isham I find these words But because We understand that the Country where he was Born layeth some formal Incapacity upon him We are pleased hereby to Dispense therewith and do require that his Country may not be any Impediment to him in that Election Ibid. notwithstanding any Statute or Order to the contrary And these Our Letters shall be sufficient Warrant in that behalf §. 10. The acknowlegement from St. Johns College in Cambridge of the Kings power in dispensing with College Statutes March the 28th Bundel Eccles Universities 1630. c. 1633. In a Letter of the Master and Fellows of St. Johns College to the Earl of Holland the Chancellor about their choosing Dr. Digby according to his Majesties Letters Dr. Beale being then Master I find they allege that he was not capable by some Statutes having not performed some things the Statutes required They write thus Yet his Sacred Majesties Request would have been tye enough upon his most Dutiful and Obedient Servants to have endeavored the accomplishment of his Royal desire had we been enabled thereunto by Dispensation with those opposite Statutes which otherwise we stand obliged by Oath to observe Which plainly shews that if a Dispensation had been obtained or inserted in the Mandate the King had been obeyed I find that the Master and Fellows of Christ College in Cambridge In the Paper Office Ecclesiastica Academica without date being desirous to Capacitate one Norton then but Senior Sophister for a Fellowship sent him with Letters Testimonial to Oxford whereupon he obtained his Bachellors Degree and so was Elected Fellow A Senior Sophister may take Bachellor of Arts Degree by dispensation The Relation saith that the Arch-Bishop hearing of it expressed some displeasure and said he would call him to an Account for his taking the Oath for Bachellor having not full time and being not dispensed with
Imperium and in such matters the Graces and Favors of Preceeding Kings are alterable and suspendible at the pleasure of the Succeeding Sovereign who cannot be Impaired in any Act of his Sovereignty by his Predecessor so that to think that a King of England can by any of his Subjects Constitutions be bound from Visiting or giving his own Interpretation of the Statutes is a great weakness of which I shall Treat more fully in it's proper place and only Infer at present that the obligation of any Subjects Oath neither to take nor Admit of any Dispensation is in it self of no force to obstruct the Sovereign from dispensing and when he doth dispense no Oath is obligatory to any that hath Sworn to observe such Statutes as are not in being while he dispenseth with them ☞ Thus much I thought fit to offer as to what relates to the Secular power As to the Popes Dispensing it was very Incongruous and weak for any Founder to expect that the Members of the Society could oppose the Popes dispensation with any Statute which his Holiness for the time being should think fit to alter or Abrogate for as (a) Validum esse vosum aut Juramentum non petendi dispensationem aut relaxationem voti quamdiu animae volentis utilius est non petere dispensationem Superior tamen potest non obstante tali voto disoensare dispensatio valida est nam vetum subditi non aufert Superiori potestatem dispensandi Jurantes vel volentes c. sub paena ut si fecerint non possunt ab alio absolvi vel dispensari quam à summo Pontifice possunt adhuc absolvi ab Episcopo nam hujusmodi votum vel Juramentum non aufert Episcopis Jurisdictionem Ita communiter D. D. Disp 4. q. 2. punct 1. n. 28. 29. Bonacina determins that tho' the Vow or Oath of any not to seek for a dispensation or relaxation of them be valid as long as the Swearers Conscience is convinced it is profitable to his Soul to keep it and not to seek a dispensation as Rodrique and other School-men there Cited allow and so in like manner not to use a dispensation yet the Superior notwithstanding such a Vow or Oath may dispense and the dispensation is valid and Assigns the Reason for that the Vow of the Subject doth not take away from the Superior the power of dispensing as Azorius Cap. 19. Quaest 13. Sanchez lib. 4. Cap. 8. n. 35. yea he further observes that if one Vow the like is to be understood of an Oath not to do such or such a thing under the Penalty that if they do it they cannot be absolved or dispensed with by any but the Pope yet for all this they may be Absolved by the Bishop for he saith by this the Authority of the Bishop is not taken away Yea I find in Lessius (a) Unde etiam possunt dispensare in voto non petendi dispensationem hoc enim non est reservatum Lessius lib. 2. cap. 40. Dub. 18. n. 134. fol. 568. that the Confessors of the Mendicant Order can dispense with the Vow or Oath to take no dispensation and that by a Privilege Granted them by the Pope if they be partakers of the Faculties Granted to the Benedictines by Pope Martin the Fifth because this is not reserved SECT III. Some other Objections considered either relating to the Visitation in General or urged in Defence of some particular Members of the Society §. 1. A Second Objection I have met with is that the Bishop of Winchester being the Local Visitor appointed by the Statutes of Bishop Waynflet it seemed more agreeable to a formal proceeding that he should have exercised his power of Visitation before the King had ordered Dr. Hough c. to have been proceeded against by the Lords Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes To which I answer First in the Resolution of a very Eminent Lawyer that the Local Visitor is appointed and trusted by the Founder and thereby hath a private Trust But the King as King hath a public Trust by operation and construction of Law and by his Sovereign Authority and Jurisdiction is Supreme Visitor and may exercise that Royal Trust as those of the long Robe use to express his Prerogative sometimes when and as often as he pleaseth without any Commanding or expecting the Visitation of the Local Visitor and having the general care of and Inspection into the Manners and Duties of his Subjects may not only Visit Enquire into and Reform the Members of the College as to their Actions but also Visit the Local Visitor himself as to his doing and performances in or about his Trust Secondly It is certain the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Lincoln as I have by many Presidents cleared before have Visited notwithstanding the Local Visitors being appointed Therefore much more may the King who is Supreme Visitor Thirdly By the speedy Application of Dr. Hough to the Bishop of Winchester before I presume his Lordship could have notice of the Kings Inhibition he had Admitted him so that he was so far become a party concerned that it was no ways convenient for him to have proceeded in it Fourthly The Local Visitor is appointed only for the ease of the Crown in ordinary Cases But it cannot be supposed that if a Local Visitor should neglect to do his Office or should be partial there should not be a power in the Sovereign to order the Visitor seeing it would be a great deficiency in the Oeconomy of Government that a power should not be lodged some where to compel a Local Visitor to do his duty if he failed in it which can ultimately remain in none but the King. §. 2. The third Objection In the third place in the particular concerns of Dr. Hough it is urged See here p. 67. that the Sentence against him could not be good in Law since he was not Cited before the Lords Commissioners at Whitehall nor appeared in person or by Proxy before them nor had his cause brought before them when Sentence of Expulsion was given against him which those that are his favorers Censure as very hard usage that one should be condemned unheard In Answer to which it must be considered that the King by his Mandate having set aside and suspended the College Statutes for Electing a person Qualified within those Statutes and impowering the College by his Royal Command without breach of their Founders Rule and their Oath upon it to Elect a person not capable of being Elected by their College Statutes as hath been abundantly cleared in the last Section Dr. Hough was not to be considered as duely Elected and so revera was no President therefore could not be taken cognizance of as such But as Fellow he was Cited and did make appearance and was heard as the rest of the Fellows were and under other Circumstances he was not Legally to be taken notice of His cause likewise
was before the Court in that the Vice-President and Fellows that were Electors were Cited and their Plea for their Election was Examined and discussed and upon full hearing was by the Lords Commissioners Adjudged to be void and null so that the Vice-President and Delegated Fellows were in this Case his Proxies §. 3. The fourth Objection It is Fourthly objected See here p. 67. That Dr. Hough was Ejected out of a Free hold for Life without any Writ of Ejectment or Tryal at Common-Law contrary to the freedom of a Subject To this I Answer That there are two sorts of Free-holds viz. Absolute and Conditional as to the first it is true that no person can be dispossessed of it but by due course of Law and in case of resistance no other way but by the Sheriff and his Posse Comitatus But in a Conditional or Attendant Free-hold as this of a College is a Man may be dispossessed without that Course if he perform not the Condition of his Free-hold so Thomas Coveney sometime President of this College was deprived of his Free-hold Attendant on the Presidentship for that he was not entred into Holy Orders and another substituted in his place without a Sheriff or Posse Comitatus for not performing some conditions required by his Office tho' duly Elected Therefore much more might Dr. Hough be Ejected by the Lords Commissioners Sentence who never was de Jure President In this Case the Free-hold is only Attendant upon the Office so that by whatever Legal proceeding the Office is declared and adjudged void by the same the Attendant Free hold ceaseth any more to appertain to the person Ejected or Deprived So a Parson hath an House and Glebe-Land and by his Ordinary is suspended or deprived ab Officio Beneficio immediately his Right ceaseth as to that Free-hold during his suspension or deprivation yea it is more here for he is as a person Dead So in any like Case an Officer that hath an House Garden c. annexed to his Office and holds that Office durante beneplacito Regis this is his Freehold while he holds the Office but when ever the King gives him a Supersedeas the Free-hold Attendant upon that Office from that moment ceaseth to be his Free-hold now the Decree of the Lords Commissioners of Deprivation Expulsion or Suspension is as much a final Judgment against Dr. Hough whose Cause was of their Cognizance as any Verdict in a Court of Common Law for Ejectment c. Hence the Reader may Judge how groundless and bold an Assertion it was in Dr. Stafford to say See here p. 75. that as to the Decree of his Majesties Commissioners against Dr. Hough they humbly conceived it was null and void in it self he being thereby deprived of a Free hold for life the which he was duly and Legally possessed of without ever being called to defend his Right or any Misdemeanor objected against him When the Doctor could not but know that Dr. Hough had neither Right to Presidentship or Free-hold if he were not duly Elected and that he could not be if the Kings Mandate and the re-inforcing of it up on the Petition of the Society that he would be obeyed was of any force as I shall in the next Paragraph further clear §. 4. The fifth Objection It is Fifthly objected that it doth not plainly appear that a Mandate implyes a Prohibition especially when the person proposed is by the Statutes of the College in no capacity to be Elected it being as Dr. Stafford urged See here p. 78. a contradiction in Terminis that to Command to Elect a person uncapable should oblige not to Elect a person capable To this first I Answer in General Answer That the Mandate having those express words in it Any Statute Custom of Constitution to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding wherewith we are Graciously pleased to dispense in that behalf takes off all disability from the person to be Elected As the Kings Pardon Absolves the Criminal from undergoing the Penalty of the Laws and restores him to the condition of a good Subject so that the person being in all respects as capable as if he had been Statutably Qualified as in the Answer to the first Objection I presume is cleared The Question is first whether any thing was to be done by the Fellows but to obey after they had received his Majesties Answer to their Petition And Secondly whether that Mandate Implyed an Inhibition and Command to chuse no other As to the first part the whole Discourse hath been a Set of Arguments to prove by a Deduction of Instances the obedience that hath or ought to have been payed to the Kings of England in all Cases where they have Insisted upon having their pleasure obeyed And there is good reason for it since there hath been either an * So I find that King Henry the 5th especially reserved to himself and Successors the power of dispensing with any of the Statutes made or to be made as appears in a dispensation for Residence granted to Dr. Blanford 21 Aug. 1663. Express or Tacit reserve according to the Construction of the Law in all the Grants made to the Universities or particular Founders Impowring them to make Statutes that the Kings should have a power to alter change amend abrogate or annul them at their pleasure However the Kings of England have by their Gracious Concessions in other particulars limited their power to act conformable to Laws made Yet in this particular of College Statutes it may be truly said of them as of the Roman Emperors what (a) Quicquid principi placet legis habet vigorem instit de lege naturali §. sed ever pleaseth the Prince hath the force of a Law as may be seen Cod. de constit principis l. 1. In principe Instit de lege naturali § sed So we find in the Civil Law whatever (b) Quodcunque igitur imperator per Epistolam subscriptionem Statuit Legem esse constat quod principi Fide constit Princ. Tit. 4. the Emperor appoints by his Epistle and Subscription is to be esteemed a Law. This may look like a Character of an absolute Prince who is Solutus Legibus but it is what is most true in Relation to Universities for by the constant practice it is experienced that tho' sometimes Mandates of our Kings have been eluded or evaded or by Petitions have been Recalled yet when our Kings Insisted upon them they were obeyed according to the words of the Digests (a) L. merito ◠2. sed de F. quod Infra Accursius in comment that a Mandate requires a ready obedience so that in Civil Law it is a known Rule that Rogatio Domini praeceptum est Mandatum Spontaneam obsequii praestationem prae se fert Instit ut de Attil Tut. § penult And the absoluteness of a Mandate is yet further cleared by the Rule in
alledged that he should have been proceeded against by Libel and have had a Copy of his Charge and used such expressions as gave just offence to the Court so that tho' the Sentence of Suspension was pronounced See p. 35. here for his Contempt in not obeying His Majesties Letters Mandatory for Electing and Admitting Mr. Anthony Farmer President of that College yet if it had not been because of his disagreeable deportment to the Court it is probable he had at that time no more Incurred the Censure of the Court than the rest of the Fellows who concurred in the said Election As to the affixing the Sentence on the College Gates See chap. 1. sect 2. p. 43. that was not a material circumstance nor whether Mr. Anthony Farmer was then or after laid by or whether he was unfitting by reason of his Immorality or otherwise It is necessary for every Court to Assert it's Jurisdiction and much more ought the Lords Commissioners to do it being they have such Ample powers from the King so that whatever Contempt was offered to their Lordships was to the King himself and that Dr. Fairfax persisted to the last in denying the Authority of the Lords Commissioners and disobeying the Kings Mandate for Admitting the Bishop of Oxford President or submitting to him as such appears by his last Answer to the Question proposed October the 25th whether he owned their Lordships Jurisdiction To which he replyed See here p. 84. 85. Under Correction he did not And being asked whether he would submit to the Bishop of Oxon as President His Answer was he would not nor could not because he was not his Legal President Whoever considers this obstinacy persisted in to the last cannot think the Lords Commissioners could do less than they did Had this been done in another Kings Reign perhaps it might have been Interpreted a Questioning the very Supremacy it self which how fatal it was to John Fisher Bishop of Rochester and Sir Thomas Moor is worthy to be considered both as a demonstration of our Kings Clemency and that the Doctor hath not so much reason to complain of the hard usage However the Doctor thought himself obliged to the observation of the Statutes and to submit to the President only he and the rest of the Fellows had chosen yet he ought to have considered what Baldus in his Comment upon the Code 3. Tit. 14 n. 7. saith * Qui sunt in aliquo Collegio ratione professionis vel negotiationis Jurisdictionem ejus qui praeest Collegio recusare non possunt non minus tamen sunt sub praeside vel alio Superiore That those that are in any College by reason of their Profession or Negotiation there ought not to refuse the Jurisdiction of him that presides in it yet they are no less subject to the President or another Superior which Superior or rather Supreme I take the King to be Besides if the Doctor and the rest of the Fellows would have considered that in relation to College Statutes however it may be disputed in other matters the King hath the same power as the Emperors had and that is to be found in the Digests thus * Quodcunque igitur Imperator per Epistolam subscriptionem Statuit vel cognoscens decrevit vel de plano Interlocutus est vel Edicto praecepit Legem esse Statuit Dig. lib. 1. Tit. 4. n. 1. Therefore whatever the Emperor appoints by Epistle and Subscription or knowing doth Decree or plainly doth express or Commands by Edict is to be esteemed a Law. Which is Literally true in all the Kings power of dispensing with or Suspending College Statutes for since it is clear by many Instances before insisted upon that the Kings of England have power to alter abrogate and annihilate Statutes of Colleges much more must they have the power to Dispense with or Suspend them ☞ Therefore when any person refuseth to submit to the Kings Authority in this particular he is deservedly punishable by Suspension or Deprivation Neither ought Fellows of Colleges assume to themselves a power of Judging of the Reasons why the King Grants Mandates in favor of any particular person or to deny their obedience to the person so recommended by Mandatory Letters because they have heard or can prove some Immortalities against him for if that liberty of opposing the Kings Mandate upon any such grounds were once allowed the Kings power must be solely precarious and every Mandate of the Kings would be lyable to disputes and debates and the Kings Sovereignty and Authority would dwindle to an Impotent wish that he might obtain his desire instead of being positively obeyed which would be such a condition of the Monarchy as would render it contemptible and whoever endeavors to lower the Dignity of the Crown in such a manner deserves just Chastisement for it which was but the bare Suspension of the Doctor from his Fellowship at first but by his perfisting in his undutifulness to the highest Degree of denying the Kings Authority he was justly punished by Expulsion and after with Incapacitating §. 9. The seventh Objection It is Seventhly Objected by some of Magdalen College that no Commission can be granted under the Great Seal to Visitors to place and dis-place Members of Colleges whose places are Free-holds ad Libitum or discretion These are the words of the Oxford Relation pag. 21. But they must proceed according to Legal discretion that is by the Laws and Statutes of the Land and Local Statutes of the College And places concerned consigned rather for the Headship and Fellowships of Colleges are Temporal Possessions and cannot be Impeached by Summary Proceedings For this they Allege the Case of Dr. Thomas Coveney President of the same College who was deprived in Queen Elizabeths time by the Bishop of Winton the Local Visitor thereof Established by Royal Authority and he Appealed to the Queen But by the Advice of all the Judges it was held that the Queen by her Authority as Supreme Visitor could not medle in it but he must bring his Action in Westminster Hall because Deprivation was a cause merely Temporal The King they own has a great Authority Spiritual as well as Tmeporal but no Commissioners can be Authorized by the Crown to proceed in any Commission under the Great Seal or otherwise but according to Law in Spiritual Causes by the Canon Law in Temporal by other Laws and Statutes of the Land. And wherein the Proceedings in some Commissions are directed to be Summarie de plano sine strepitu forma Figura Judicii those words are to be applyed to shorten the Forms of Process and not for matter of Judgment For Magna Charta provides for our Spiritual as well as Temporal Liberties §. 10. Answer to it by parts To Answer this Objection distinctly we must consider the several parts of it for it is an huddle of several matters jumbled something confusedly to set off the matter