thereunto but also be so far Lord over them that when he seeth cause he may abate or totally remit the Penalty Incurred by the breach of them and dispense with others for not observing of them at all yea generally Suspend the Execution of them c. §. 2. Why the Author Treats not largely on this subject But I foresee it will be alleged that what is urged thus in General and in Theory is to be applyed to the Constitution of the Government of England otherwise it reacheth not the point in Question concerning the Kings power of dispensing with College Statutes To which I Answer first That the Kings power in dispensing with Penal Laws in General having by Solemn Judgment in the Kings Bench been determined and several Treatises published to clear the point of Law and there being so lately a * Jus Coronae Treatise Writ by a Judicious person wherein the Kings power in that matter is Learnedly discussed I may be excused from treating more particularly of that § 3. Observations on the 25 H. 8. C. 21. I shall therefore only note a few observables from the Statute of the 25 of King H. 8. Chapter the 21. Entituled in Kebles Edition 1684. An Act concerning Peter-pence and Dispensations but Originally Entituled otherwise as may be seen in the * 1 2 Phil. M. c. 8. sect 10. Act of Repeal in Queen Maries time and the * 1 Eliz. c. 1. sect 8. Act of restoring it in Queen Elizabeths time to which I shall add the explication of another Act 8 Eliz. Cap. 1. and some few other remarks upon that Head. The Foundation of this Act is grounded upon an Hypothesis The Statute 25 H. 8. c. 21. is founded upon the usage of a dispensing power that a dispensing power is needful in Government and altho' it be the constant Opinion and Judgment of the Courts of Law and all Lawyers that the principal intendment of that Act was to Abolish the Popes power and Authority in England in granting Licences Dispensations Faculties c. Yet from this Act many particulars may be observed I must refer the Reader to the Act it self which will shew not only the allowed usage of a dispensing power by the Popes and Prelates in matters of Ecclesiastical Cognizance by sufferance as the Act Styles it of our Kings but that the Original Right of such dispensations was in the King and so continues It is then First to be noted from the Act The Pope excercised a dispensing power that the Pope claimed by Usurpation as it is there Styled and persuaded the Subjects that he had a power to dispense with all Human Laws yea and Customs of all Realms in all Causes which he called Spiritual But the same Act saith that such claim of the Pope was in Derogation of the Kings Imperial Crown and Authority Royal contrary to Right and Reason The power excercised by the sufferance of the King and in derogation of the Royal Authority Therefore in the close of this Section it is added that because it is now in these days present seen that the State Dignity Superiority Reputation and Authority of the said Imperial Crown of this Realm by the long sufferance of the said unreasonable and un-charitable usurpations and exactions practised in the times of the Kings most Noble Progenitors is much and sore decayed and diminished c. Therefore remedy is provided c. From hence I think with submission Nota. it must be owned that if the Pope usurped this power in derogation of the Authority Royal then that power must be owned to be originally in the King otherwise in the Construction of the Act it could be no Usurpation §. 4. The Ecclesiastical power originally in the King according to this Act. ☞ Besides it 's the general Opinion of the greatest Lawyers of England that according to the Constitution of our Laws all Ecclesiastical power and Authority in England is Originally in the King so derived from him or if otherwise it is adjudged Usurpation and encroachment It being an undeniable Maxim That no person hath power or Jurisdiction in England but the King or what is derived from him and this power of the King cannot be disposed away nor abolished but by express words in an Act of Parliament Yea so Sacred are the Prerogatives of the Crown that tho' in some Cases the Kings of England have by Act of Parliament departed with their Prerogatives So the Statutes of the 23 H. 6. about Sheriffs and 31 H. 6. about Justices of Assize are frequently dispensed with Coke 12 Rep. 14. Hoberts Reports Colt and Glovers Case p. 146. and yielded not to dispense with the contrary by a non-obstante yet such Acts have been judged void So my Lord Hobert upon this very Statute saith that he holds it clear that tho' this Statute says that all Dispensations c. shall be granted in manner and form following and not otherwise yet the King is not thereby restrained The Kings prerogative not restrained by Acts of Parliament on several Cases but his power remains full and perfect as before and he may still grant them as King for all Acts of Justice and Grace flow from him as 4 Eliz. Dyer 211. The Commission of Tryal of Pyracy upon the Statute of 28 H. 8. cap. 53. is good tho' the Chancellor do not nominate the Commissioners as that Statute appoints yet it is a new Law and Mich. 5. and 6 Eliz. Dyer 225. the Queen made Sheriffs without the Judges notwithstanding the Statute of 9 E. 2. and Mich. 13. and 14 Eliz. Dyer 303. The Office of Aulnage granted by the Queen without the Bill of the Treasurer is good with a non-obstante against the Statute 31 H. 6. cap. 5. For these Statutes and the like saith the Reverend Judge were made to put things in Ordinary Form and to ease that Sovereign of Labor but not to deprive him of Power He further adds that notwithstanding the excercise of the Popes Authority yet the Crown always kept a Possession of it's Natural power of Dispensations in Spiratualibus as 11 H. 4. so to retain Benefices with Bishoprics and 11 H. 7. to have double Benefices I might add to these to Reservation in the Statute 2 R. 1 Hen. 4. cap. 6. 2. c. 4. saving to the King his Regality to be found in the Parliament Roll in the Kings Confirmation of Liberties which Sir Ed. Coke 4. Instit 51. complain of for being un-printed as also of King Henry the 4th that he will by the Assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal aforesaid and at the request of the said Commons be Counselled by the Wise Men of his Council in things touching the Estate of him and of his Realm saving always his liberty that is his Prerogative for that is properly the King Liberty §. 5. Where to find Arguments for the dispensing power I shall not trouble the Reader with
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
others quâ Legate as appears in the Decretals where (d) De Officio Legati cap. 1. Alexander the Third resolves that the Arch-Bishop could not hear Jure Metropolitico matters Episcopal that came not to him per Appellationem that is by a Legal way but Jure Legationis he might such as were brought unto him only per quaerimoniam §. 7. The Style of Legates a Latare when first used ☞ The Name of Legatus a Latere is first found in our Historians to be given to Johannes (e) Hoveden Anno 1189.177 a. 10. Anagninus Cardinalis Anno 1189 and altho' the power of these Legates was great yet it is manifest that what they did was only so far as they had the Kings permission so that in some respects it may be said whatever they did in Visitations and other matters was by the Kings Authority and sufferance for which purpose we have that Memorable Letter (a) Vita Hen. Chichelsey ab Ant. Duck Edit 1617. p. 79. from Henry Chichelsey to King Henry the Fifth which I shall give in the words it was Writ in Be Inspection of Laws and Chronicles The Legatines power by our Kings permission was exercised in most Cases was there no Legate a Latere sent into no Lond and especially into your Reagm of Yngland witoute great and notable cause And that when thei came after thei had done her Legacie abiden but litul wyle not over a yer c. And yet evir that was tretyd with or he cam into the Lond whon he should have exercise of his power and how mych shold be put in Execution an a venture after he had bee reseyved he whold have used it too largely to great oppression of your peple A further proof that Legates here could do nothing contrary to the Laws and Customs of the Land appears in this particular I shall now recite ☞ Henry Beaufort the Rich Bishop of Winchester The first Cardinal that was a Privy Councellor who was Cardinal of St. Eusebius Son of John a Gaunt and so of the Kings Blood and was employed by Martin the Fifth as General against the Bohemians and to that end Erected his Cross Anno 1429. 8 H. 6. was sent Legate into England and was made one of the Kings Privy Council and is noted to be the first that of that Order was so Admitted Yet we find that he was to (b) Râ—t parlâ—â— 8 H. 6. N. 17. His protestation to absent himself when matters of difference betwixt the King and Pope were debnted make a protestation that as often as any matter cause or business did concern the King his Kingdom or Dominions on the one part and the Apostolic See on the other which was to be Communed and Treated of in the Kings Council the Cardinal should absent himself and no ways be present at the Communication of the same It further appears how Legates Executed by the Kings Allowance or Connivance the powers given them by the Pope because if they did otherwise no person being the Kings Subject was so great but he was forced to gain his pardon for the Offence if he Committed any Hence we find that even this (a) Rot. Parl. 10 H. 6. N. 16. He Petitions for pardon if he had done any thing against the Laws being the Kings Subject great Cardinal caused a Petition to be Exhibited in Parliament That he the said Cardinal nor none other should be pursued vexed impleaded or grieved by the King his Heirs or Successors nor by any other person for cause of any provision or offence or Misprision done by the said Cardinal against any Statute of provisions or per cause of any Exemption Receipt acceptation admission or execution of any Bulls Papal to him in any manner By all this I hope the Ingenuous Reader will sind The Inference hence that what the Popes Legats did in Visitation or otherwise was by the Kings superadded Authority that what Visitations were made of the University of Oxford by the Popes Legats whereof I shall give several Instances in the sollowing Section doth no ways Infer that thereby the Kings power of Visiting was exauctorated but that whatever they did was in subordination to the Kings pleasure or as allowed by his Laws §. 8. Concerning the Arch-Bishop or Bishops Visitations The other Visitors of the University were either the Arch-Bishops of Canterbury as Metropolitans or the Bishops of Lincoln as Dioecesans or the Local Visitors I shall now endeavor to prove that whatever they did in Visitation as well as other External Regiment was by order allowance or connivance of the Kings of England so that though I shall here after produce their Visitations yet it will appear that the Kings Supreme Authority was thereby no ways prejudiced I need not here enter into the claims our Ancient Kings made to the Investitures of Bishops having touched it before nor how for their Baronies Homage is required of them It is most manifest that our Kings have Interposed their Authority even in allowing or dis-allowing of their persons This is clear by the Speech of Wolstan (a) Ailred de Miraculis Edw. Col. 406.37 Here we may note that the Alteration was by agreement at the Confessors Tomb Bishops allowed by the King. that he had compelled him to take the Pastoral Staff. So King Edward the Third wrote to Pope Clement the Sixth that his Progenitors long since upon Vacancies by their Kingly Right conferred the Cathedral Churches freely on fit persons and afterwards at the Instance of the See of Rome under certain Forms and Conditions granted that Elections should be in the said Churches by their Chapters §. 9. I need not insist upon the Kings of England seizing the Temporalities of Bishops into their hands and so Suspending them a Beneficio for those who will take the pains to look into Mr. Pryns Historical Collections will find many Instances thereof ☞ The Statutes of Provisions the complaints against the Popes Provisions in Mat. (b) Anno 1240. fol. 532.43 fol. 549.18.22 Anno 1246. fol. 669.9 Paris and the Parliaments of King Edward the Third and Richard the Second clear this point And when Anno 1349. the Pope wrote to the King that he would not hinder or permit these to be hindered to receive the Benefices who were by the Court of Rome by Bulls promoted The King Answered that he well would accept those Clerks so provided which were of good condition and were worthy of Promotion but others he would not If then the very admitting the persons to the Dignity and Office were in the Kings power as by the Conge d'eslire is well known it cannot be doubted but that the Exercise of their Government I speak not here of their Sacerdotal Function was according to the Kings Laws §. 10. How far the Canons were allowed in England We may therefore now consider how far the Ecclesiastical Canons were allowed by our Kings and how called his Laws ☞
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
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
remedy had been at Common Law only It were easie to quote the resolutions of several Judges Savil's Reports fol. 83.105 that no Appeals lye to any but the King in person from a Sentence of the Kings Commissioners in Ecclesiastical causes so Baron Savile affirms that no Appeal doth lye from a Sentence in the High Commission Court and that the high Commission Court is not within the meaning of the Statute of the 25 of H. 8. but the Opinion of my Lord Dyer or others do not exclude an Appeal to the King in person Dyer's Reports for 42. who is the Fountain of Justice and all the Statutes of King Henry the 8th and Queen Elizabeth as to the Erecting of Courts and granting Jurisdiction do only remit and restore the King to his Ancient Jurisdiction of Visiting and Reforming abuses recieving Appeals and other Judicial Acts as Supreme Head and Ordinary as Serjant Dacres observes §. 15. The Case of Charles Cottington Esq about Appeals I shall now Instance in a case of later date wherein there being an Appeal made to the House of Lords against a Decree of the Delegates the Lords dismissed it as not coming properly before them ☞ The case was this Ex Autographo In the Custody of the Clerk of the Parliament Charles Cottington Esq exhibited his Petition May the 10. 1678. to the Lords shewing that in the Year 1677. he Travailing into Foreign parts unfortunately fell into acquaintance with one Angela Margareta Gallina Daughter to a broken Gold-smith in Turin in the Dukedom of Savoy The Petition of Mr. Cottington and was contracted to her in the presence of a Romish Priest in Turin that afterwards he found her a vicious person Married to one Frichinone Patrimoniale upon which Information he left her and returned for England Then he sets forth that this Gallina came to England and claimed to be the Petitioners Wife that he had cited her before the Dean of the Arches in a cause de jactitatione Matrimonii and she alleged that before the contract with the Petitioner she was Divorced from Patrimoniale and the Divorce was pronounced by the Arch-Bishop of Turin and that tho' he made it appear that the Sentence was Collusory and in it self void and not to be regarded in England yet the Judge of the Arches had Sentenced the said Gallina to be the Petitioners Wife Then follows the premises so highly concerning your Petitioner both to the peril of his Conscience Honor Body and Estate and concerning this his Majesties Kingdom in the Establishing a Foreign Jurisdiction against the Laws of the Kingdom Your Petitioner humbly Appealeth in the premisses to this High and Honorable Court and humbly prayeth that the said Sentence of the said Dean of the Arches and Commissioners Delegates may be reversed This was referred to the Committee of privileges Referred to the Committee of privileges June the 6th it was ordered that Presidents and Records should be brought and Council to be heard June the 12th The Earl of Essex's Report from that Committee The Earl of Essex made report from the Committee that upon full hearing what was alleged by Council on both sides and upon perusal of several Presidents they are of Opinion that the said Appeal did not come properly before them the Earl of Shaftsbury only dissenting as by his Subscription appears The Order is entred in these words Die Lunae 17 o. Junii 1678. According to the Order of the 12th of this Instant June The House of Lords Order upon it the House took into consideration the Report from the Committee of privileges concerning the Appeal of Charles Cottington Esq from the Commissioners Delegates whether the said Appeals be properly brought before this House The Opinion of the Committee being that the said Appeal did not properly come before this House The Opinion of the Committee being that the said Appeal did not properly come before this House After debate and consideration of Presidents the Question being put Whither to agree with this Committee in the Report It was resolved in the Affirmative and it is thereupon Ordered that the Petition and Appeal of the said Charles Cottington be dismissed the House of Peers It is to be considered in this matter Considerations upon this Case that after the Sentence in favor of this Gallina by the Delegates Mr. Cottington Petitioned the King in person for a review or dis-annulling the Decree which the King refused to grant and upon that the Petitioner Addressed himself to the Lords whose Order I have recited and tho' it be not expressed in the same Order why the matter was not properly brought before their Lordships yet it is well known that the cause was by reason that Appeals in Ecclesiastical causes do not lye before their Lordships If I could have procured the Printed Case I might have enlarged upon this matter and if it be my good fortune to meet with it before the Publication hereof I shall take notice of what may be material in the Appendix §. 16. The Ninth Objection that matter of Fact proves not right It is Ninthly Objected that tho' it be allowed that the Kings of England have sometimes dispensed with College Statutes and done those things I have all along Instanced in yet that proves not the Right or Justice of the thing since à facto ad jus non valet consequentia To this I Answer The Answer there is a vast dis-proportion betwixt the Acts of Kings and of Subjects Constant and un-interrupted usage are the Foundations of the Customs of England which are Incorporated into the Common Law of the Land and so many Rights are determined for private persons But in the Orders of the Sovereign one declaration of his pleasure by Mandate in several Cases is sufficient Precedent tho' but rarely made use of upon the presumption in Law that such Acts of Kings are not without deliberate consultation However the constant practice of the Kings of England which I hope I have fully proved takes away all colour for this Argument And it is most certain if the Kings dispensing power with Statutes and putting in Heads of Colleges Fellows c. by Mandates If the Kings Prerogative in this Case had been against Law it would have been questioned at some time had been against the Law we should at some time or other heard of Actions brought before the Judges against the Kings Authority in that matter and found determinations upon them in favor of the aggrieved which I think is not to be found But the Kings of England have been in Possession of this Prerogative in all Ages The King in Possession of this Prerogative tho' most conspicuously since the Reformation and so this Prerogative must be adjudged to appertain to the King till by some Legal Tryal it shall be determined otherwise It may be upon this Topick rationally urged that tho' the Kings dispensing power in other matters be in
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
be found amongst you and not otherwise 'T is a great grief to all sober Men to see any who would be thought True Sons of the Church of England act like Men frighted out of their wits and Religion as you have certainly done Never any True Son of the Church of England was or will be disobedient to his Prince the Loyalty which she hath taught us is absolute and unconditional Tho' our Prince should not please or humor us we are neither to open our Mouths or lift up our hands against him Yours like all other Corporations is the Creature of the Crown and how then durst you make your Statutes spurn against their Maker Is this your way to recommend and adorn our Religion and not rather to make it odious by practising that in such a froward manner which our Church Professes to abhor Do we not pray for the King as the Head of it under Christ Do we not acknowledge him for the Fountain of Honor And does not Solomon Command his Sons to fear God and the King the one with a Religious the other with a Civil fear Is he not the Lord 's Annointed and not to be toucht but with Reverence either in his Crown or Person And why should we not render then to all their dues Fear to whom Fear and Honor to whom Honor Is not this an Eternal tye both of Justice and Gratitude For where the Word of a King is there is Power And who may say unto him what dost Thou Are we not next to God and his Good Angels most beholden to him for our safety whose Honor and Lawful Authority We are now come to Vindicate Is he not the Father of our Country and ought he not to be more dear to Us than our Natural Parents especially considering how Indulgent he has been to Us and what care he dayly takes to keep us from biting and devouring one another we know not why Is not he the Center of the Kingdom and do not the concurrence of all Lines meet in him and his fortunes and how can we then understand the limits of self love if a tender Sense of his Honor and happiness be not deeply rooted and imprinted in our Souls 'T was neither dutifully nor wisely done of you to drive the King to a necessity of bringing this Visitation upon you And as it must needs grieve every Loyal and Religious Man in the Kingdom to the heart to find Men of your Liberal Education and Parts so Untractable and Refractory to so Gracious a Prince so it will be very mischievous to you at the Great Day of Gods Visitation Who will then be the greatest loosers by your Contumacy For God will Revenge this among your other Crimes that you have behav'd your selves so ungratefully towards his Vicegerent as to oppress his Royal Heart with grief for your Stubbornness to whom by your chearful Obedience you ought to have administred much cause of rejoycing They who Sow the Seeds of Disobedience have never any great reason to boast of their Harvest for whatsoever they vainly promise themselves in the beginning they are in the end ashamed and afraid of the Income of their evil Practices and indeed every sort of disobedience hath so ill a report in the World that even they who are guilty of it themselves do yet speak ill of it in others Let therefore the disreputation and Obloquy which it will inevitably bring upon you make you out of Love with it or if that will not do let the Stings of your guilty Consciences and the fear of Divine Vengeance restrain you or if you are still Insensible of all these yet at least let the present fear of those Temporal Punishments which the Laws of the Kingdom have superadded to the Contemners of Gods and the Kings Authority oblige every Soul that hears me this day to be Subject to the Higher Powers If neither a most Merciful God nor a most Gracious King can please you your wages will he recompence upon your own Heads Were it not for this Serpent of discontent and jealousies which are now so busie in it this Kingdom would be like the Garden of Eden before the Curse a Mirrour of prosperity and happiness to all the World besides but this Serpentine humor of Stinging and Biting one another and of Tempting Men to Rebel against God and the King because others who differ from us in Judgment are as happy as our selves will as certainly turn us as it did our first Parents out of Paradise Our Nation is in greater danger of being destroyed by Prophanness then Popery by Sin then by Superstition by other Iniquities then by Idolatry and I pray God we may not see Sacrilege once more committed under the pretence of abhorring Idols as I my self have seen in this place If there be any among you who have sinn'd with so high a hand against our Gracious Sovereign as the obdurate Jews did against our Saviour saying we will not have this Man to Rule over us such your petulant humor such your shameful Injustice and Ingratitude will deserve the just Animadversions of this Court. What distempers this College is sick of which we are now come to visit by the Kings Commission your selves are best able to tell us We are informed of too many already and yet we suspect there may be more and therefore be but Ingenuous and make a Conscience of giving us sincere Answers and you shall find that we will abate nothing of the just measures of our Duty for fear or favor to satisfie the Importunities of any Man being well assured that God and the King will bear us out I am sorry that you should any of you run so far upon the score of the Kings Royal Patience and Pardon as some of you have already done And that you should be in such vast Arrears of Duty and Respect to him as you are But they go far who never turn The Influence you may have upon other parts of the Kingdom makes me Charitably hope that your future Fidelity and Allegiance will for ever Answer your Duty and the Kings just Expectation And therefore I hope it will not be in vain for me to exhort you in the Bowels of Christ to a more entire submission and obedience because if such Men as you bred in so Famous an University are not thoroughly convinced of the necessity of it the more Popular you become the more pernicious will you be in encouraging your deluded Admirers who have their Eyes upon you from all parts of the Kingdom to be as Disobedient and Contumacious as your selves by which the Honor and Authority of the King may be diminished and the peace both of Church and State come to be endanger'd Obey them who have the Rule over you either in Church or State and submit your selves before it be too late for your contumacious behaviour towards them will yeild you no profit at all but your Obedience much every way the former will