THE ingenuous Answer of some of the Doctors, and both the Proctors of my Mother-University of Oxford, to the ho­nourable standing Committee of Lords and Commons for its regulation, on the 16. of this instant November, (before whom they were then personally con­vented, for demurring to the jurisdiction of the Visitors appointed them by both houses of Parliament) to this effect: That they did in their former papers presented by the Proctors, October 8. by way of petition, onely represent their sense of their own priviledges, and their Obligations (as they conceived) by divers oaths for the maintaining of them, without circumscribing or limiting, much lesse denying or contemning the authority of the Lords and Commons, but purposely avoyding (as still they did desire to avoyd) all questions of so high and transcendent a nature; it being possible that they might be in an errour, and yet to be obliged in conscience, not to do otherwise then they have done, till they are convinced of that errour. And therefore humbly d [...]sired convenient time to advise with councell, more fully to inform themselves, in a case so extraordinary, and of so great concernment, not onely to themselves, but to the whole Vniversity in present, and in future, &c. enduced me, not onely then to move this honourable Committee, that the University [Page 2] and they might be fully heard by their Counsel on a conve­nient day, to alledge whatever they could, both in maintain­ance of their respective Answers delivered in under their hands to some of the Visitors, and then by them there ac­knowledged, which was accordingly ordered in their favour; But likewise to borrow some time from my other employ­ments, to examine and refute all those pretended University priviledges, and false allegations to support them, in a Letter lately printed at Oxford (by the Universities approbation, if I am not misinformed) entituled, The Priviledges of the Vniver­sity of OXFORD in point of Visitation, &c. (which hath sedu­ced many to dispute and disobey the Visitors power;) where­in the substance of all their Objections against the Visitors jurisdiction in point of law or conscience, are comprised; that so I might in a University way, by strength of argument and evidence, not by power and force, inform the misguided judgments, and satisfie the erronious consciences of all such members of this University, liable to our visitation, whose obstinacy or malignity shall not render them altogether in­capable of better instruction, and consequently of any hopes of commiseration or pardon for their contumacy.

I [...] is not my design in this summary Discourse, to enter into any large debate of the Sovereign power of both houses of Parliament, whose supream jurisdiction to visit, punish; reform all abuses and corruptions in the Kings own Court, in the highest Courts of Justice, the greatest Officers of State, and in all Corporations[?] and Societies of men whatsoever, within this Realm, I have largely vindicated in The Sove­reign Power of Parlia­ments and Kingdomes, Part 1, 2. and the Appendix at the end of the fourth part. other Treati­ses, seeing the University it self, and the parties convented, do willingly wave this dangerous Dispute, as fatall and destructive to them, if positively insisted on; but onely to demonstrate to them the vanity and falsity of this their pre­tended Priviledge they peremptorily assert, and principally rely on, as their lawfull Inheritance and Birth-right, which they are obliged by oath and duty to maintain.

That the right of visiting the Vniversity of Oxford is onely in the Kings Majesty, and that it is exempt[?] from all other jurisdiction, both by foundation, prescription, and severall grants of exemption.

[Page 3]This their claim and assertion, I shall irrefragably falsifie and refute by Histories and Records, which cleerly evidence;

First, That the University of Oxford was anciently of right for many ages, under the jurisdiction, if not visitation of the Bishop of Lincoln, as he was their Diocesan.

Secondly, that it was anciently of right, and so continued till this Parliament, under the visitation & jurisdiction of the Archbishops of Canterbury as Metropolitanes (who have fre­quently visited this University and Cambridge too) as being within their Province, and have been acknowledged and adjudged by King Richard the second, King Henry the fourth, and an whole Parliament in his reign, and by King Charles himself, upon solemn debate, to be lawfull Visitors of it, de ju­re. And that these three Kings, and the Parliament of 13. H. 4. have by their Charters and Votes absolutely disclaimed the King's sole right of visiting the Universities, and alwayes re­solved the contrary, when the Universities for their own ends have set it on foot, and laid claim unto it: no King of England before Henry the eight, ever visiting either of the Universities, for ought appears by any authentick Records.

Thirdly, That the Pope by his Legat hath visited both Universities, without resistance, or any Plea put in to his jurisdiction, no longer since then Q. Maries reign; and that the Universities are subject to their Chancellours jurisdiction and visitation too, by their own conffessions.

Fourthly, That most particular Colledges and Hals in both Universities, as Colledges, Hals and Members of the Univer­sity [...] have their particular Visitors appointed by the founders, to whose visitation and jurisdiction they are subject, and not to the King's alone.

Fiftly, That their pretended grants of exemption were pro­cured onely from Popes, not from the Kings of England; that our Kings themselves & one Parliament, have damned them, as derogatory to the King's Prerogative, even in times of Popery, and the Vniversity it self disclaimed and renounced, them both before the King, and in full Convocation, as a grievance, not a priviledge, obtained against their wils, and without their privity, to their prejudice.

[Page 4]When I have made good these positions, the whole Univer­sity and their Delegates (if not stupendiously obstinate) must necessarily retract this their Plea as false and nugatory, and disclaim their imaginary Priviledge.

For the first of these, it is as cleer as the noon [...] day Sun, that the University of Oxford was under the jurisdiction, if not visitation of the Bishops of Lincoln, as being their Diocesans: First, by the very Buls of Pope About Anno 1300. Boniface the eight, and Anno 1475. Sixtus the fourth, cited in the third page of the Priviledges of the Vni­versity of Oxford in poynt of Visitation; in expresse termes ex­empting the University, ab omni jurisdictione Episcopali & a Vi­sitatione: which needed no such exemption by two succes­sive Popes, from the Bishops jurisdiction and visitation, if the University (founded many hundred yeers before these Buls were granted) had never been subject to, but exempted from it by foundation and prescription too, as is pretended; it being then a meer superfluity for these Popes to grant, or the Uni­versity to embrace, as a special priviledge and indulged favor.

Next, by these ensuing cleer Historical passages: Tiguri 1589. Matthew Paris in anno dom. 1257. pag. 915, 916. writes thus concerning the Bishop of Lincolns and University of Oxford's contest then happening between them about his jurisdiction and the Universities priviledges, which he endeavoured to infringe in the generall, without specifying the particulars, which difference was referred to the Parliament then at hand to determine.

Eodem tempore, videlicet septimo idus Martii, venerunt ad sanctum Albanum quidam Magistri Oxoniae, circitèr novem Artistle, q [...]i querula voce coram Rege, in Capella Sancti Oswini reposuerunt querimoniam de Episcopo Lincolniensi, qui contra Statuta Universitatis antiqua & approbaca, nitebatur libertates Scho­larium eneruare: & statutus est dies responsionis ad instans mag­num Parliamentum, ut auditis partium rationibus, pacificarentur, &c. Godwin's Catalog [...]e of Bishops, p. 241 242. who like­wise recites this contro­versie. Henry Lexinton was then Bishop of Lincoln.

What the Parliament (here made the proper Judge of the U­niversities priviledges by the Kings own referēce) determined in this cōtroversie, or what the priviledges cōtroverted were, I find not in any Historian or Record: but certain it is, they [Page 5] determined nought against the Bishops jurisdiction over the University of Oxford, who had the better cause and right; as appears by this passage of Matthew Parker, in his Londini 1572. Antiqu. Ec­clesiae Brit. p. 204. in the life of Iohn Peckam, anno 1287.

Hoc etiam tempore lis quaedam inter. Lincolniensem Episcopum & Universitat [...]m Oxon, aliquot innis de jurisdictione Episcopi in Scholares Universitatis agitata est. In qua Joannis Can­tuariensis, cum SCHOLARIVM CAVSAM VA­CILLARE, NEC IVRA STARE POSSE in­tellexerat, Scholaribus rescripsit; si in Jure contenderent, VIN­CI EOS ET SVPERARI NECESSE ESSE; praesertim cùm his quibus uterentur Privilegiis A IURIS­DICTIONE EPISCOPALI IVRE COMMVNI STABILITA, EXIMI NEQVAQVAM PO­TVISSENT: Godwins Catalog [...]e o [...] Bishops, p. 242. Oliver Sutton was then Bishop of Lincoln.

Upon this advice, it seems the University submitted to the Bishop of Lincoln's jurisdiction, as their Diocesan, so far as to present their Chancellour to him for his approbation and confirmation; as is evident by this History, recorded in Antiq. Eccles. Brit. p. 268.

Anno 1350. Oxoniensis Universitatis Scholares Cancellarium suum, quendam Willihelmum de Palmorna elegerunt: Qui cùm ad Lincolniensem Episcopum, in cujus Diocaesi tunc ste [...]i [...] Oxo­nium confirmandus venisset, crebris procrastinationibus in aliud tem­poris ab Episcopo rejectus est: Id tàm Universitas Oxonien [...]is quàm ipse Cancella [...]ius electus indignè tulit. Qui facti querela coram A [...] ­chiepiscopo (Simone Islippe) declarata, ab eo opem & remedium ad tam diutinam & voluntariam sine causa tollendam moram, petierunt. Archiepiscopus edicto Lincolniensi praecepit, Ut Cancellarium electum die quodam statuto confirmaret, aut coràm se com­pareret, dicturus causam, cur admitti & confirmari non debeat. Interea Archiepiscopus causam Johanni Coulton Cancellario suo, & Ecclesiae Cathedralis Wellensis Decano commisit. Die statuto ade­rant Cancellarius electus, & Oxoniensis Universitatis procura­tores, qui confirmationem & consecrationem instanter petierunt; Lin­colniensis autem Episcopus non comparuit: in cujus absentis contu­maciam Cantuariensis Cancellarius in negotio electionis le­gitimè procedens, eam legitimè ritèque celebratam, ac cano­nicam [Page 6] esse pronunciavit. Quo facto Archiepiscopus Cancella­rium confirmavit, & eundem ad Universitatem Oxoniensem regendam admisit; gregique Scholarium scripsit, ut ei jam ad­misso juxta Universitatis jura ac statuta obtemperent atque pareant. Ab hac admissione Lincolniensis Episcopus privilegie suo antedictó (ut se suosque papali privilegio, quod Avinione à Papa Clemente magnis muneribus impetravit, ab hujus Archiepiscopi jurisdictione defenderet) fretus, ad Papam appellavit. Archiepiscopus antem rejecta appellatione, eum ut suae jurisdictionis & Archiepisco­palis authoritatis contemptorem, ad sui tribunal vocavit, & non accedentis proterviam interdictis Ecclesiasticis in ejus terras praediaque latis mulc [...]avit: multa deinceps in hac lite coram Papa agitanda con­troversa sunt, in quibus Lincolniensis revocato suo privilegio a Cantuariensi victus succubuit.

This great Contest happened in the time of Iohn Synwell Bishop of Lincoln, as Catalogue of Bishops, p 95, 245. Godwin (who relates it too) informs us; adding, That the Pope also granted at the same time unto the Univer­sity, that the Chancellour should be onely elected by the Schollers them­selves, and so presently authorized to govern them, without the admission of any other.

But this I conceive is a cleer mistake; for Matthew Parker (out of whom he relates it) records, That this exemption of the University of Oxford from the Bishop of Lincoln's jurisdi­ction, was procured by the intercession of William Wittlesey Archbishop of Canterbury, about the yeer 1375. (and that from another Pope, not Clement but Vrban, some 25. yeers after this contestation) which he thus expresseth, Antiqu. Eccles. Brit. p. 283.

Hujus Archiepiscopi intercessione atque gratia Oxoniensis Academia à jurisdictione Lincolniensis Episcopi, per Urbanum Papam quintum EXEMPTAEST: & tàm libera potestas Cancellarium suum eligendi [...]acta Scholaribus ut Cancellarius sine admissione quacunque simulatque electus sit magistratum inire atque gerere possit. An un­deniable evidence, that till this Papall exemption procured, the University and Chancellour of Oxford were under the Bishops of Lincol [...]ns jurisdiction, as their Diocesans.

After this, Thomas Hyndeman Chancellour of the University of Oxford, and Nicholas Faux his Commissary, procuring [Page 7] another exemption from the Pope [BONIFACE the eighth, as some affirm] of this University and the Schollers in it, both from Archiepiscopal and EPISCOPAL JURISDICTI­ON; the Schollers, and Doctors of Oxford complained of it to Archbishop Arundel, and the whole Convocation at London in the yeer 1396. and there openly renounced it, as non mod [...] in Metropolitani & ORDINARII, sed & ipsius Vniversitatis praejudicium atque gravamen: Whereupon it was damned by the whole Convocation (as you may read at large in Antiqu. Eccles. Brit. p. 304) and likewise by King Richard the second, in the twentieth, and by Henry the fourth, and the Lords and Commons in Parliament in the 13 ^th yeer of his reign: (of which more anon:) whereby the Bishop of Lincoln's jurisdi­ction over the University of Oxford was not onely acknow­ledged and revived, but likewise submitted to by the whole University of Oxford; and this exemption from it by Popes Buls onely, declared to be a prejudice and grievance to the University it self, and the Bishop too: whose jurisdiction thus revived, was never afterwards impeached or abrogated by any subsequent Buls or Patents I can meet with, but con­tinued its vigor till the erection of the Bishoprick of Oxford out of Lincoln by Act of Parliament, and Letters Patents of King Henry the eighth, in the yeer 1541. which abolished the Bishop of Lincoln's power, and translated this part of his Dio­cesse to the Bishop of Oxford, as the Patents of 33. & 37. H. 8 to the Bishop of Oxford demonstrate.

In fine, Richard Flemming Bishop of Lincoln, Godwin's Catalogue of Bishops, p. 246. in the yeer 1430 founded Lincoln Colledge in Oxford, and William Smith Bishop of Lincoln, anno 1513. founded Brasenose Colledge in Oxford; of both which Colledges (though members of the University) and of some others, he and his Successors continued Visitors till this present Parliament.

By all these evidences, I humbly conceive I have sufficiently fortified my first position, That the University of Oxford was subject to the jurisdiction, if not visitation of the Bishops of Lincoln (as the University of Cambridge was to the Bishops of Ely, which I can fully evidence, were it pertinent) and refuted the Universities and their Delegates false plea, That [Page 8] the right of visiting the Vniversity of Oxford is onely in the King's Majesty, and that it is exempt from all other jurisdiction, by its foun­dation, prescription, and severall grants of exemption.

I shall now proceed to the proof of my second position, touching the Archbishops of Canterburies right & jurisdiction to visit the University of Oxford (and Cambridge too) as Me­tropolitans, being scituated within their province, by Histo­ry, Records, and our Kings avowing of this their right, and disclaiming their own ONELY OR SOLE RIGHT TO VISIT THE UNIVERSITIES; wherein I shall make use of non [...] bu [...] punctuall authorities.

Godwin in his Catalogue of English Bishops p. 74. writes thus of Robert Kilwardly Archbishop of Canterbury; That (in the yeer 1278.) he visited all his Province, and BOTH THE VNIVERSITIES; in which he disputed excellently, and shewed himself in divers kinds of exercise. And Matthew Parker in his Ant. Eccles. Brit. p. 198. records of him, Totam Cantuar. Provinciam visitationis jure peragravit; In hac VISITATIONE ACA­DEMIAS IPSAS METROPOLITICA AV­THORITATE INGRESSVS EST; (and that without any opposition or demurrer to his jurisdiction, for ought appeareth:) & Oxonii in Scholis, non modò de Theologia, sed de Philosophia atque Logica argutè disp [...]tavit. In quibus artibus multas Oxoniensium opiniones & sententias tanquam minus proba­biles reprehendit atque refellit.

His next Successor Iohn Peckam, anno 1288. visited the University of Oxford by his Metropolitical right, without any resistance or dispute, Antiqu. Ecclef. Brit. p. 204. Ipseque perlu­strata reliqua Provincia OXONIENSEM ACADEMIAM IURE METROPOLITICO VISIT ATVRVS ADLIT: In qua visitatione, quasdam philosophicas opiniones, quos errores, & a Roberto Kylwarby ante reprehens [...]s docuit, tanquam Haereses & à fide Christianâ abhorrentes è suggestu Latinè refellit.

Simon Islippe Archbishop of Canterbury anno 1350. received an Appeal from the Chancellour-elect and Proctors of Oxford against the Bishop of Lincoln, who refused to admit and con­form William Palmorin, whom they had elected and presented [Page 9] to him for their Chancellour; upon whose default, he admitted and approved of his election, confirmed him in his Office, and wrote to the Schollers of the Vniversity to submit unto and obey him, according to the lawes and statutes of the Vniversity, as Antiq. Eccles. Brit. p. 258. and Godwin in his Catalogue of Bishops, p. 95. affirm, and Pag. 5, 6. I have formerly manifested more at large: A pregnant evidence of his Metropolitical jurisdiction both over the Chancellour and University.

Anno 1390. William Courtney Archbishop of Canterbury (as Antiqu. Eccles. Brit. p. 302. informe us) Visitationem totius Provinciae suscepit: and being strongly opposed by the Bishops of Exeter and Sarisbury, whom he enforced to cry peccavi, and to submit to his visitation at last; reliquas tunc Diocaeses sine molestia visitavit: In Lincolniensi solummodo a visitatione quorun­dam Monachorum, gratia & intercessione Abbatis Albanensis, OXONII cessavit: (visiting all the rest of the University.) Ita visitatione peracta aliquantulum cessavit. And in the Register of Archbishop Arundel, fol. 46. the Doctors, Batchelours and Schollers of the University of Oxford, in their Articles exhi­bited against their Chancellour and Vice-chancellour, to Archbishop Arundel and the Convocation of the Clergy, recite and make this honourable mention of this Archbishop Court­ney's visitation of the University (where he was joyfully re­ceived without the least oppositiō, though forcibly resisted in other places) Quod dictus Archiepiscopus IPSAM VNIVER­SITATEM TAM IN CAPITE QVAM IN MEM­BRIS, plura gravamina revocando, crimina corrigendo, excessus reformando, diversas personas ab act: scholasticis suspendendo, AV­THORITATE SVA METROPOLITICA VI­SITAVIT.

These three Archbishops having visited the University of Oxford (and Cambridge too) in their Metropolitical visitations without the least contest or opposition; Thomas Hyndeman their Chancellour, and Nicholas Faux his Commissary, without the Universities and Schollers consents, procured a Bull from the Pope, to exempt themselves, together with the Univer­sity, Colledges and Schollers in it, from all Archiepiscopal and Episcopal jurisdiction and visitation: Whereupon Thomas Arundel [Page 10] Archbishop of Canterbury, intending to visit the University (as his Predecessors had done) in the yeer of our Lord 1396. was opposed by the Chancellour and Vice-Chancellour, who pleaded the self same plea against this Archbishops visitation, as the Universities Delegates and Doctors do now against the Visitors appointed by Ordinance of Parliament, and Commission under the great Seal; namely, That the visitation of the Vniversity of Oxford, as a Vniversity, belonged onely and solely to the King, and not to the Archbishop, or any other: and that the Vniversity and Schollers in it, were by the Popes own Bull exempted from the Arch­bishops and Bishops jurisdiction and visitation. Whereupon the Doctors, Proctors and Schollers of the University complain­ed to Archbishop Arundel and the Convocation against the Chancellour and Vice-Chancellour for procuring this Bull, which they renounced, and the Convocation then damned; and the whole matter comming afterwards before King Richard the second, he disclaimed any such Priviledge and Prerogative of sole visiting the University, as they would fasten on him, acknowledged and ratified the Archbishops and Ordinaries jurisdiction over them, and nulled the Popes Bull of exemption. This is apparent by Archbishop Arundels Register, fol. 46, 91, 92. by Archbishop Parkers Register fol. 269. and these ensuing passages in Antiq. Eccles. Brit. transcribed out of it, pag. 304. Anno 1397. Januarii 19. Cleri Synodus Londini convenit. In hac Synodo Scholares Oxonienses quaerelam contra Thomam Hyndeman Universitatis Cancellarium, & Nicholaum Faux ejus Commissarium proposuerunt; Quod ex­emptionis jura, quibus ab Archiepiscopali & Episcopali juris­dictione Universitas fiat immunis a Papa impetrassent, non modo in METROPOLITANI & Ordinarii, SED IN IPSIVS VNIVERSITATIS PRAEIVDICIVM ATQVE GRAVAMEN: Quod privilegium SERVI­TVTIS POTIVS QVAM LIBERTATIS IN­STAR ESSE DOCEBANT. Cùm enim anteà si ini­quis Cancellarii aut Procancellarii imperiis opprimerentur, aut injuriis afficerentur, appellationibus & Archiepiscopali aequitate subventum eis suit, nunc in unius potestatem redacti, a quo nec permissa esset provocatio, nec superioris jurisdi­ctione [Page 11] possit coerceri, quasi perpetuae servituti subjacerent. Itaque ab Archiepiscopo petierunt, ut QVONIAM SVAM IN EOS IURISDICTIONEM AGNOSCERENT, & antecessoris sui Willielmi Courtney moderationem atque pru­dentiam CVM ACADEMIAM OXONIENSEM TAM IN CAPITE QVAM IN MEMBRIS VISIT A­RET, experti essent, VT EA a Cancellario ejusque Commissario procurata PRIVILEGIA RESCINDRET; QVI­BVS IPSI, interposito ad id Michaele Sergeaux juris utrius (que) Doctore legitimo procuratore, EXPRESSE ATQVE PUBLICE IN SYNODO RENVNCIARVNT. Eam RENVNCIATIONEM Archiepiscopus RATAM HABVIT, ET EXEMPTIONIS OXONIENSIS PRIVILEGIA IRRITAET IN ANIA IVDI­CAVIT. Tum Cancellarius quasi furore actus petulanter ac immo­destè se abdicavit Magistratu, Synodoque sine venia discessit; sed Archiepiscopus eum edicto revocavir, ejusque proterviam atque auda­ciam repressit. In eadem Synodo DOCTORES OXONI­ENSES quosdam Joannis Wicly [...]i opiniones exposuerunt, quas Synodus condemnavit. And pag. 309. anno 1413. Legatis autem ad concilium generale Pisis emissis, ARCHEPISCOPVS in ea Synodo Jura quaedam QUIBVS TAM CANTABRI­GIENSIS QVAM OXONIENSIS ACADEMIAE TENERENTVR, condidit; quoe in publicis constitutionibus continentur; Nam & RICHARDUS REX, Thomae Arundel Cantuariensi Archiepiscopo, antequàm in exilium iret VTRASQVE ACADEMIAS, ETSI EXEMP­TIONEM CLAM A PAPA OBTINVISSENT, SVBIECIT, ET OBTENTA PRIVILEGIA non minus ARCHIEPISCOPALI QVAM REGIAE AVTHORITATI PRAEIVDICIALIA, IDEO­QVE RESCINDENDA, DECREVIT.

This will yet more evidently and undeniably appear by the Patent of King Richard the second himself, recorded in the Patent-Rols, De anno Vicessimo Richardi secundi, parte 3. Memb. 9. and entred in the Registers of Archbishop Warham, fol. 111. and Archbishop Parker, fol. 269, which for fuller satisfaction, I shall at large transcribe.

An ancient royal Declaration and judgment in the present Controversie, so full and diametrally opposite against the Vniversities and Delegates present Plea and pretences, that nothing can be replyed thereunto.

This Declaration and Resolution of King Richard the 2 ^d, was afterward more fully recited, approved and ratified by King Henry the fourth, and the Lords and Commons in Par­liament, as I shall presently manifest in its proper place.

Not long after this Declaration and Patent, this Archbi­shop Thomas Arundel, in the yeer of our Lord 1407. visited the Vniversity of Cambridge, and the Colledges therein, thus summarily expressed by Matthew Parker in his Antiq. Eccles. Brit. p. 308, 309. Post haec Archiepiscopus Cantabrigiensem Academiam JVRE METROPOLITICO VISITAVIT, multaque Col­legiorum statuta ordinavit, pravas consuetudines delevit, facinora Scholarium castigavit, & cum visitationem remisit, omnia quae sibi in visitatione detecta fuerunt, causasque de quibus cognoscere ac inquirere caepit, suae jurisdictioni reser­vavit.

[Page 14]The relaxation of this Metropolitical Visitation was not till Octob. 15. 1404. so as it depended three whole yeers or more, as is apparent by the Register of Arundel, 1. pars, f. 388 wherein the whole forme of his visitation of Cambridge Vni­versity and Colledges, being at large recorded, fol. 491, 492, 493. it will neither be impertinent nor unprofitable to give you this account thereof, in the words of the Register, fol. 492, &c. which may serve for a pattern of direction now.

This Archbishop having thus peaceably without any re­sistance, visited the University, Colledges and Schollers of Cambridge by his meer Metropoliticall right, as being within the Diocesse of Ely, and part of his Province (though in re­gard of their foundation and Buls of exemption from several Popes, they might have pleaded as ful an exemption from Ar­chiepiscopal and Episcopal jurisdiction and visitation as the University of Oxford, which I could demonstrate, if material) After this, in the yeer of our Lord 1411. he determined to visit the University of Oxford in the twelft yeer of King Henry the fourth his reign; but comming thither to visit, was repulsed by the Chancellour Richard Courtney, Benedic [...] Brent and Iohn B [...]rch Proctors, and some Schollers of their faction, which Thomas Walsingham in his Historia Angliae, and [...]podigma Neust [...]iae too (Anno Dom. 1411. thus relates: Dominus Cantuariensis dum ni [...]itur visitare Vniversitatem Oxoniarum, repulsam passus est. Whereupon the Archbishop complaining to the King of that affront, both parties referred themselves to his royall de­termination of this Controversie; who after a full h [...]a [...] ­ing of both parties, the seventeenth day of December, in the twel [...]t yeer of his reign, by deliberate advice of his Councel, confirmed the Order [...]ormerly made by King Richard the se­cond, over-ruled the Chancellours and Proctors pretences, (now revived and insisted on) That the Vniversity was exempt from all Archiepiscopall and Epi [...]copall visitation by the Bull of Pope Boniface the eight (which he d [...]clared null & prejudiciall to his crown, and they then renounced the second time) and that the King was the onely and sole Visitor of the Vniversity as a Vniversity: which he then likewise disclaimed, and adjudged, That the Archbishops of Canterbury should and ought for ever after to visit the Vniversity, [Page 20] Chancellour, Proctors, and all Doctors, Schollers and Members of the Vniversity whatsoever; and that if the Archbishops were hereafter di­sturbed in their Visitations of the Vniversity, all its Franchises, Li­berties and Priviledges should be seised into the King's hands till their submission thereunto; and they should likewise pay a thousand pound fine to the King for such their disturbance. Which resolution and pro­ceedings before the King in this cause being drawn up in writing and presented to the King, Lords and Commons in the Parliament of 13. Henry 4. and there read before them, were they all ratified and confirmed by them, and enacted to be of as great vigor and effect, as if they had been done and made in Parliament; which is evident by the Parliament Roll it self, An. 13. H. 4. num. 15. and by Archbishop Parkers Register, fol. 269. a true transcript whereof (for the full conviction and satisfaction of all our present Opposers) I shall here insert

[Page 27]This Act is likewise recorded even by Robert Hare himself, in his Collectio Libertatum & Privilegiorum Vniversitatis Oxon.

Lo here a full and punctuall resolution of two successive Kings, Richard the second and Henry the fourth, and of the Lords and Commons in Parliament against the present pretended Priviledge and Plea of the University of Oxford and their Delegates, which subverts all the grounds of their feigned exemption from all other Visitors but the King, either by foundation, prescription or papall Buls and Grants.

This Archbishop Arundel not onely visited the University of Oxford, but likewise held a Provinciall Councell therein Anno Dom. 1408. in which he made a constitution concerning the Heads and Wardens of the University, thus entituled, Gardiani principales & Praepositi Universitatis Oxoniensis, semel in singulis mensibus inquirant de moribus & Doctrina suorum Scho­larium (and that under pain of deprivation, in case of wilfull neglect) which Constitution is recorded at large by Iohannis de Aton, Constitutiones Legit. fol. 154. Yea, Ex memo­rand. Phillip Repingdon, E­pist. Lincol. f. 196. Phillip Repingdon Bishop of Lincoln sent forth his Citations for a visitation to the University of Oxford, as their Diocaesan, intended to be held by him in St Maries Church in Oxford, dated, apud Leicest. 12. Feb. Anno Dom. 1415. (being the first yeer of Henry the fift his reign) to which the University, as to some particulars readily submitted, as is evident by their answer to him, viz. That they intended to make PERSONAL APPEARANCE to his Summons at the time and place appointed, Recepturi quae ad Officium inquisitionis haereticae pravitatis duntaxat pertinere noscum­tur. Sub hac tamen protestatione, quod per illam personalent compari­tionem non intendimus in vos consentire SVPER QVIBVS­CVNQVE ARTICVLIS. (haereticae pravitatis duntaxat exceptis) &c. Datum apud Oxon. 4 ^• mensis Martii Anno Dom. 1413. A cleer evidence, that by the repeal of the Popes Buls of exemption in Parliament, 13. H. 4. not onely the Arch­bishops of Canterbury, but likewise the Bishops of Lincoln's ju­risdiction over, and visitation of the University of Oxford as their Diocesan, was revived and submitted to, at least in cases of Heresie.

[Page 28]And in this very yeer 1413. this Archb. Arundel made cer­tain Statutes for the government of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, as Antiqu. Eccles. Brit. relates, p. 309. the greatest badge of his jurisdiction over them.

Anno Dom. 1417. Henry Chirbley Archbishop of Canterbury upon the frequent and grievous complaints of divers in both Vniversities, made a Constitution and Ordinance in full con­vocation, to endure for ten yeers, touching the promotion of Graduates in the Vniversities of Oxford and Cambridge, enrol­led in his Register, fol. 13, & 14.

Iohn Morton Archbishop of Canterbury, in the yeer of our Lord 1490. visited divers Diocesses within his Province, and among others the Diocesse of Lincoln, wherein the Vniversity of Oxford then was, Antiq. Eccles. Brit. p. 342, 343. in which visitation it is probable he visited the Vniversity, as part of that Diocesse, though I find no expresse mention of it.

Anno Dom. 1557. Reginald Poole Archbishop of Canterbury, visited the Vniversities of Oxford and Cambridge by his Dele­gates, the History where of its recorded at large in Master Fox his Acts and Monuments, Vol. 3. Edit. 1640. p. 762. to 780. and epitomized in Antiqu. Eccles. Brit. p. 422. which Visita­tion some say he kept onely as Popes Legat, not in his Me­tropolitical right, though I conceive he visited in both those capacities; altering and reforming the Statutes of both Vni­versities, and making new ones of his own for them to ob­serve, yet extant among their Records.

An. 19. of Queen Elizabeths reign, Edmund Grindall Archbi­shop of Canterbury and his Commissary, received an Appeal from William Wylson elected Rector of Lincoln-colledge in Ox­ford, whom the Bishop of Lincoln and his Delegates (Visitors of that Colledge) refused to admit, and thereupon granted an Inhibition to the Bishop and his Visitors, and summoned them to appear before him to determine this election, as ap­pears by the Queens Commission to examine this businesse, dated 23. Apr. 19. Eliz. endorsed on the Rolls of that yeer.

In the twelft yeer of King CHARLES William Laud Arch­bishop of Canterbury intending to visit both Universities by his Metropolitical Right, the Universities revived this Plea [Page 29] against his jurisdictiō, which had rested in peace without any controversie from K. Henry the 4 ^th his resolution, Anno 1612. till that very yeer 1635. The Universities alleaged, that the King onely was and ought to be their sole Visitor, and that they were exempt from all. Archiepiscopal and Episcopal visitation by foundation, prescription, papall Buls, royall Charters and expresse Statutes; & the Vice-Chancellour, and Heads of the University of Cambridge, on the 24. of December 1635. presented this ensuing Paper to the Archbishop, against his Metropoliticall power to visit them (comprizing in it whatever the University of Oxford hath alleaged, or can colorably object against their present visitation) the Originall whereof I have in my custody, endorsed with the Archbishop's own hand.

Yet notwithstanding all these reasons, presented by the Vni­ver. of Camb. & others of like nature sent from Oxf. amplified by councell, upon a full & deliberate hearing of both parties before the King himself & the Lords of the privy Counsel at Hampton court, the King and Lords resolved against the Uni­versities claims and reasons, and confirmed the ancient De­clarations and Resolutions of King Richard the second, and Henry the fourth, disclaiming this new revived Monopoly, of the King's sole right of visiting the Vniversities, they would attri­bute to him as his Royall Prerogative, and their grand Pri­viledge and Birthright (which they are bound by oath and duty to maintain) as this ensuing Charter of King Charles himself will demonstrate, to their eternall refutation.

[Page 39] By all these recited Histories and Records it is unquestion­ably apparent, both in point of fact and right too, That the Archbishops of Canterbury have from time to time visited the Universities both of Oxford and Cambridge, the severall Col­ledges and Hals in them, by their meer Metropolitical right. That this right of theirs, and jurisdiction over the Universi­ties, was never opposed, nor this Plea or Priviledge of the King's sole right, ever pretended or insisted on till 20. R. 2. and that only by a factious party in the University of Ozford. That this King himself, on whom that Prerogative was first fixed, did by an expresse Charter and Decree absolutely dis­claim, and adjudge it for the Archbishops, against the U­niversity of Oxford, upon a solemn reference of the whole bu­sinesse to him. That when the Vniversity of Oxford renewed it again, King Henry the fourth, to whose determination the Vniversity and Archbishop submitted the descision thereof, adjudged it for the Archbishops against the Vniversity, and disclaimed this pretended Prerogative of his sole visiting she Vniversities: which determination of his was ratified by the Lords and Commons in Parliament, as a binding Decree against the Vniversity, and their Successors: That the Arch­bishops of Canterbury enjoyed the Privilege of visiting the Vniversities without dispute, till 12. Caroli, who upon full hearing of both Vniversities and the Archbishop, before himself and his Councell, by his Letters Patents under the great Seal, confirmed the descisions of Richard the second, and Henry the fourth, and the Archbishops Metropolitical right of visiting the Vniversities, notwithstanding all Pleas, Buls and Charters alledged for their exemprion; and like­wise disavowed his own pretended right of sole visiting the Vniversities as Vniversities; That the Popes Buls now insist­ed on for exempting the Vniversities from Episcopal and Archiepiscopal jurisdiction and visitation, have been renoun­ced by the Vniversities themselves, and declared null and void by these three Kings, and the Parliament of 13. H. 4. and no bar at all to the Archbishops right then, much lesse to the Parliaments now: That no Kings of England ever vi­sited the Vniversities till King Henry the eighth, and that [Page 40] neither his visitation of the Vniversity by his Commissioners (if reall) nor K. Edward the sixt by his, nor the Statutes of 26. H. 8. c. 1. 25 H. 8. c. 19, 31. nor 1 & 2 Phil. & Mary c. 8. nor 1 Eliz. c. 1. did deprive the Archbishops of Canterbury of this jurisdi­ction, nor yet the Bishop of the Diocesse, whose jurisdiction continued till the twelft yeer of King Charles, as this clause in his Letters Patens, Declaramus quod Vniversitates praedictae per Episcopos & Archidiaconos IN POSTERVM NON VISITENTVR, intimates: which fully makes good my second, and fift position too, in every particuler branch.

I shall be briefe in proof of my third. That Cardinal Poole Archbishop of Canterbury, in the third and fourth yeer of Queen Maries Reigne, as Popes Legat, visited both Vniver­sities, is thus related by Matthew Parker his immediate succes­sor, Antiqu. Eccles. Brit. p. 422. Reginaldus Polus in LEGA­TIONE ADMINISTRANDA, quia [...]um in vivis vix aliqui Evangelici quas flammis extingueret noti essent, in mortuos saevire decrevit. Ac primum Cantuariensem Diocaesim VISITA­VIT; deinde CANTEBRIGIENSEM ET OXONIEN­SEM ACADEMIAS, Johanni Christophersono Cice­strensi, & Cutberto Scoto Cestrensi Episcopis, necnon Colo, & maximè Ormaneto (quem omnit us rebus praefecit) LVSTRAN­DAS, & ad Pontificiam [...]mussim atque normam reducendas commisit. Hi c [...]m in collegi [...]s omnia perturbassent, novis (que) duris legibus multorum juvenum praeclar [...]s indoles a studiis prorsus alienassent, ne quid crude­litatis omitterent, mort [...]orum sepulchra violarunt, &c. The whole form and proceedings of their visitation of the Vniversity and Colledges of Cambridge, is at large recorded by Master Fox in his Acts and Monuments, Edit. 1640. Vol. 3. p. 762, to 780. where those who please may read them at their leisure; both the Vniversities submitting to his Visitors visitation of them, not onely as Archbishop, but Popes Legat too: cui Papa commisii visitationem & reformationem Studiorum genera­lium; as he expressed in his Processe: This Cardinal altered the old, and made new Statutes for the Vniversities, rejecting those made by King Edward the sixt his authority, which Statutes of his are yet remaining among the Records of both Vniversities.

[Page 41]That the Chancellours of both Universities have ancient­ly, and at this day claimed a power of jurisdiction and visita­tion too (in some cases) over them, is confessed and argued by the University of Cambridge, in the Summary Brief of their Reasons, forecited, p. 29, 32. they alledging this as one princi­pall reason, why they should be exempt from all Episcopall and Archiepiscopall jurisdiction and visitation too, in some cases: and the University of Oxford, (as is apparent by the words of the Commission of Queen Elizabeth, 23. Aprilis, 19 Eliz.) made the se [...] same Plea and suggestion against Arch­bishop Grinda [...]s jurisdiction in receiving an Appeal from William Wilson (Rector elect of Lincoln-colledge in Oxford) against the Bishop of Lincoln and his Visitors, who refused to admit him Rector of chat Colledge, That the Chancell [...]ur of the Vni­versity of OXFORD, time out of mind, had been in quiet possession of this Priviledge among others: Quod Doctores, Magistri & Scho­lares omnes & singuli dictae & Academiae, ab omni jurisdictione, Domi­nio vel potestate quorumcunque Archiepiscoporum, etiam Legatorum natorum, necnon Episcoporum, aliorum Ordinariorum, & judicum quorumcunque quoad omnes Contractiones, vel quasi initos infra prae­dictam Vniversitatem, & quoad OMNIA CRIMINA, vel quasi & PVNITIONEM corundem (exceptis prae-exceptis, mahemia, & felonia, & Assisis, & placitis de libero tenemento) & quoad OMNES ACTVS SCHOLASTICOS, quam­di [...] degerint in e [...]dem Vniversitate, sunt exempti & totalitèr liberati, & praedicto CANCELLARIO SUBJECTI. Et quod CANCELLARIUS praedictae Vniversitatis OM­NEM ET OMNIMODAM JURISDICTI­ONEM ECCLESIASTICAM ET SPIRI­TUALEM IN PRADICTOS SCHOLA­RES ET ALIAS PERSONAS EXER­CERE LIBERE ET LICITE POSSIT ET VALEAT. The reality of which pretended exemp­tion, priviledges and infringment of them by Wilson's Appeal, the Queen referred to the examination and determination of the Bishops of London and Rochester, Christopher Wray chief Ba­ron of the Exchequer, Sir William Cordell Master of the Rols, Thomas Wilson Doctor of Law, one of the Masters of Request [...], [Page 40] [...] [Page 41] [...] [Page 42] Iohn Gibbons, Doctor of Law, and one of the Masters of the Chancery, and Iohn Griffeth Doctor of Law, or any seven, six, five, four, three or two of them; but what they did or determined therein is uncertain.

If then the Popes Legats and the Chancellours of both Uni­versities, have exercised, and time out of minde enjoyed such jurisdiction over the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge; their pretence, of being subject onely to the King's visitation and jurisdiction, must necessarily be disclaimed, being direct­ly contrary to their own expresse claims, in relation to their Chancellours.

My fourth position, That the particular Colledges, Hals and Members of the Vniversity have their particular Visitors appointed by their founders and private Statutes, to whose visitation and jurisdi­ction they are subject, not to the King's alone; is such a known truth, that I need not prove it, having given some touches upon it Pag. 7. already in Lincoln-colledge and Brasennose. The rather, because the author of the Priviledges of the University of Oxford, p. 6. makes this Argument against the Visitors pre­sent jurisdiction, We have yet a more strict and particular Obliga­tion, being sworn by our respective Statutes, to allow and submit to no visitation but from those who are nominated by our Founders. And the common and Statute Law of England allows the Found­ers of any Colledge, Abbey, Hospital, Free-school or Free-Chappel, without cure of souls, to visit or nominate those who shall visit the same, as is evident by 8 Ass. 29. 8. E. 369. 13 Ass. 2. 11 H 4 12. 84. 27 E. 3 84. 6 H. 714. Fitz. Nat. Bre. 42. a. b. 50. [...]. Brook Praemunire 1. 5. H. 5. c. 1. 25 H. 8 c. 21. 43 Eliz. c. 4. Now of all the Colledges or Hals in the Univer­sity of Oxford, as Doctor Fell (the pretended Vice Chancellour alledged before the Committee of Lords and Commons for regulating the University) there is none but Christ. Church onely, of which the King is immediate Visitor, (and that originally founded by Cardinal Woolsey, not the Kings Pro­genitors) and no more but it and Speed's Hi­story, p. 1066, 1085, &c. Orial colledge, and S ^t. Mary-Hall (founded by K. Edward the 2 ^d) and Iesus-colledge (founded by Qu. Elizabeth) whereof the King and his Progenitors have [Page 43] been Founders; which three later have their particular Visi­tors appointed by their Founders Statutes: and no Colledge in the University of Cambridge but Kings-colledge, Trinity-colledge any Christs-colledge, whereof the King's Ancestors are immedi­ate Founders; how then the King can truly and really be stiled, the sole Founder or Visitor of both or either our Uni­versities (there being but three Colledges in Oxford, and three in Cambridge of his foundation, and but one of his visitation) I desire the University at leisure to resolve, since this their Plea, We have yet a more strict & particular obligation, being sworn by our respective Statutes, to allow and submit TO NO VISITA­TION but from those who are appointed by our Founders, quite subverts their grand pretended Priviledge, and strongest Plea in Bar (which the Author of The Priviledges of the Vniversity of Oxford undertakes to make good) That the right of visiting the Vniversity of Oxford, is onely in the King's Majesty, and that it is exempt from all other jurisdiction, by its Foundation, Prescription and grants of Exemption; when as I have proved it to be anciently and legally subject both to the jurisdiction and visitation of the Bishops of Lincoln, of the Archbishops of Canterbury, the Popes Legats, the Chancellour; and the Colledges and Hals as Members of it, to sundry particular Visitors, appointed by their respective Statutes and Founders; the two last whereof themselves acknowledge and urge too. Which fully refutes the King's pretended royall Monopoly of sole visiting the University, which himself and his Progenitors have severall times disclaimed and resolved against in expresse terms, as I have manifested.

My fift position is P. 9, 10, 11, 21, 36, 38. already substantially proved in every syllable, in the evidence for probat of the second; which I shall not repeat, but only conclude, the Author of the Vniversi­ties Priviledges was very ill advised to plead Popes exploded, illegal, antichristiā Buls in Bar against the jurisdiction of both houses, and the Visitors deputed by them, in these Anti-papal times of Reformation, which might justly induce them to suspect, that the Heads and Members of the University have a higher and more reverent esteem of the Popes usurped, [Page 44] abandoned authority, and illegal Buls, then of both houses rightfull Power and Ordinances, which they would have these voyd Papall Buls (no better then the white Bull in Osny Tower) controll, though the very Letter of them extends onely to exempt themselves from Archiepiscopal and Episco­pal, not Parliamentary jurisdiction and visitation, no more then Regall.

These five positions being all confirmed, and the Universi­ties pretended grand Priviledge and false Plea thereby suffi­ciently refuted, I shall next examine and refeil the false grounds and impertinent Evidences produced by their advo­cate to make them good, and so leave them without excuse.

Object. The first ground in maintainance of this exemption is, That the Vniversity The Unversi­ties Privi­ledge, p 2, 3. of Oxford wholly refers to the King, as its Ori­ginall & Founder; That almest 800. yeers since, King Alured not onely founded publick Schools of Arts & Lectures, but their Privi­ledges & Immunities, having gotten them confirmed by the then Pope; That the Vniversity ever submitted and she [...]red themselves under the title of the Kings Foundation & yet do. For which some In­struments of the University to K. Richard the 2 ^d, and others, wherein they recite they are Vestrae fundationis & Patronqtus, are cited in the Margin: Now all Societies whereof the King or his Predecessors were Founders, are ONELY VISITA­BLE BY THE KING, by the common Law of this Realm 6 H. 7 f. 14. 2 H. 5 (I suppose he intends the Statute of 2 H. 5 c 1. since there is nothing in the yeer book to that purpose.)

To this I answer, Answ. first, That the originall Founder of the University of Oxford is not certainly known: Secondly, That King Alured was not the first Founder of this Vniversity, or of Schools and Lectures in it, (which had been time out of mind before, as Master Cambden in his Britiania, p. 378. proves out of Ass [...]r) but onely the Restorer and Repairer of them, recalling the long banished Muses unto their own sacred cels, it being a Vniversity above three hundred yeers before at lest; its Orders and Ordinances for Lectures, &c. being made and established by Gildas, Melkin, Ninnius, Kentigerne, and other godly and learned men, which Saint German wondrous well allowed of [...] which the old Schoolmen of the Vniversity proved by the undoubted testimony of old Chronicles be­fore [Page 45] King Alured, in their contest with Grimbald their Divinity Professor there: And it is one thing to be a Founder, ano­ther a Repairer or enlarger; else every Founder of a new Colledge or School in the Vniversity, or Repairer of an old one, should be the Founder of the University and Colledge it self. Thirdly, That this King conferred any Priviledges or Immunities on this Vniversity, & got them confirmed by the Pope; I find no satisfactory evidence: but admit he did, this makes him no more a Founder of the Vniversity, then Edward the 3 ^d, Richard the 2 ^d, King Henry the 8 ^th, Queen Elizabeth, King Iames, or King Charles, who confirmed and allowed the Vniversities ancient priviledges. Fourthly, there are only three Colledges and one Hall in Oxford now remaining of the King's and his Predecessors foundation, and one of them Christ-church, was really founded by Cardinal Wool [...]ey as a Colledge, and by the Godwins Ca­talogue of Bi­shops, p. 404. King onely as a Deanary and Ca­thedral; all other Colledges and Hals, with the publike Schools and Library had other Founders; therfore the King and his Progenitors cannot be properly stiled, the sole Foun­der of the whole Vniversity, and so the onely Visitors by the common Law. Fiftly, the Parliament it self (to speak pro­perly) is the true reall Founder and establisher of both Vni­versities, they being incorporated and made capable to sue, purchase and enjoy all their Priviledges and Lands without controversie, onely by an act of Parliament in the 13. yeer of Queen Elizabeth, rot. 36. the title whereof is onely men­tioned in the printed Acts; therefore the Parliament being the true Founders of it, have best right to visit it by the com­mon Law, by us their Commissioners, as this Objection proves. Sixtly, this plea, That the Vniversity is of the King's foundation only, (as the Objector grants) is but the Vniver­sities own device, who anciently did, and yet do shelter them­selves under the title of it, against their lawfull Visitors, and are very ill advised to fly to this false shelter now, since three Kings and one Parliament have severall times driven them from it, as the premises evidence. Seventhly, admit the antecedent true, that the King and his Predecessors were sole Founders of the Vniversity, yet the sequell is unfound: Ergo [Page 46] they only are the Visitors of it, and none others, seeing I have proved, that others have of right visited and had jurisdiction in and over it as a Vniversity from time to time, besides our Kings, and that of right, by our Kings and Parliaments reso­lutions, notwithstanding this pretext of being sole Foun­ders. Eightly, the King and his progenitors by their Char­ters are as much Founders of every Corporation, every Company of Merchants and other Tradesmen in London and other Cities, as of the Vniversities; will it therefore follow, Ergo, none must visit or regulate them but the King, and the houses of Parliament, the Committees for Trades, Com­plaints, Grievances, Clothiers, Weavers, &c. may not regu­late nor reform them, much lesse the Lord Major and Court of Aldermen, as they have usually done. Ninthly, the Book of 6 H. 7 14. is no resolution, but a private opinion; It only speaks of the Kings free Chappels without cure, which he or his Chancellours shall visit, not the Bishop, but by Commis­sion; not of Vniversities or Colledges, the thing in question; nor yet of Monasteries, Churches and Chappels with cure of souls, which the Archbishop and Bishop of the Diocesse shall visit, though built, founded and endowed by the King himself, as this very Law-book [6 H. 7 14.] grants; whence most ancient Abbies founded by our Kings, were exempted from archiepiscopal and Episcopal visitation and jurisdicti­on by special Charters confirmed in Spelman Concil. Tom. 1. p. 631. to 635. Ioan. S [...]ldeni No [...]ae ad Eadmerum p. 165. Parliament, and Popes Buls, the King's meer foundation and Charters alone being no legall exemption from their power by the common or Canon Law. As for the Statute of 2 H. 5 c. 1. it speaks only of Hospitals of the King's foundation, that the Ordinaries shall visit them by his Commission, not of Colledges or Vniversi­ties; without the words and intention of the act. Tenthly, this and other Law-books onely say, that the Bishop shall not visit Hospitals and Free-Chappels of the King's founda­tion; but no Book avers, the Houses of Parliament may not visit them nor their Delegates: and to argue, the Bishop of the Diocesse may not visit the King's Free-Chappels or Hos­pitals; Ergo, the Parliament may not do it; is no better Lo­gick then; The Ordinary cannot visit nor reform the greatest [Page 47] Officers of State, the Cours of Justice at Westminster, the Kings own Court; nor any civil abuses, and publike grievan­ces: Ergo, the Houses of Parliament cannot do it. Yea, all our Books agree, that the Bishop by Commission, under the great Seal, may lawfully visit the Kings Freechappels & Foun­dations, and the stat. of 2. H. [...]. c. 1. enacts as much: But we have such a Commission to visit the University, therefore we may lawfully do it. These answers, I suppose, have suffi­ciently shaken the sandy foundation of the Universities Exem­ption, the Kings Foundation of it, whereon they most rely.

Yea, but the Objector learnedly replys, p. 3. Here you may please to consider, that the Foundation of the Vniversity being the Kings personal act, his interest lies not within the reach of that Beaten evasion, of a publike and politique Ca­pacity. I answer, I understand not wel what he means by the Kings personal act: Unless the act of the King in his na­tural Capacity, as a Man, not in his Politick, as a King. If so, then it follows: 1. That the King and his Progeni­tors, as Kings in their publike and politick Capacities, were not founders of the University, but only in their natural, as private men; which subverts his own assertion and founda­tion. 2. That this priviledg of a Founder is not annexed to the Kings publike and politick, but natural and personal Ca­pacity, and so not descendible nor hereditary; since personal actions, acts and priviledges, by the rules of the Law, Actio persona­lis moritur cum persona. die with the person. If he mean by the Kings personal act; that the King in person, laid the very first Foundation stone of the University with his own hands; or writ and sealed the Pa­tent or Charter that first founded it, himself, and not by a­ny Substitutes or Officers: This wil b [...] hard for him to prove; and the sequel wil be; That the King only in his own Royal person, must visit the Vniversity now; but net by any Com­missioners or Delegates; and so all his other Foundations, contrary to all former presidents, Statutes and Law-books, that he may visit them by Commissioners, which the Un [...] ­versities Answer acknowledgeth, and himself to [...]

The next * Ground of Exemption urged, Object. 2. is pre-scription [Page 48] and Bulls of Popes; both which being abandantly refuted in the premised positions, and no plea at all against both Houses of Parliament, or any power derived from them, (not mentioned, nor included in, nor yet confinable by these Bulls) though they might hold good against any ordi­nary or inferior Jurisdiction, if true, I shall here therefore pre­termi [...] without further Answer.

The 3 ^d, Object. 3. ground of Exemption alleaged, it Page 2. 3. 4. grants of Ex­emption by Popes, allowed and confirmed by Charters from several Kings, both by themselves and in Parliaments; to prove which, there are quoted in the Margin some Popes Buls, out of H [...]re, the old book of Oxford Statutes, and the Senior Proctors Book, with this addition, 25. H. 8. c. 21. All power of Visitation is given only to such, as shall have imme­diate Authority by the Kings Commission, under the great Seal of England, in places formerly exempted; as COL­LEDGES &c. All Letters, Patents heretofore made by the Kings Progenitors, in behalf of the Vniversities, are con­firm'd by act of Parliament. 13. Eliz. & 19. Eliz. part. 13. in Dorso; The Priviledges of the Vniversity are confirm'd in the very words of Boniface, 8. acknowledged they had them by prescription; the immediate subjection of the Vniversity to the Authority and Iurisdiction of the Prince, and all their other Exemptions ratified; and those acknowledged to be sworn to, in the Oath taken by every Graduate. These are all the evi­dences of moment produced to make good this ground.

I answer. Answer. 1. That all these Popes Bulls of Exemption now insist [...]on, were so farr from being allowed and confirmed by Charters from several Kings, both by themselves and in Parliaments; that King Richard the 2. and King Henry the 4. by both their Charters, and in Parliament, upon solemn debate, disallowed, [...]ulled and declared them meerly void, and the University it self, absolutely renounced them as nullities and prejudicial, in both their Raigns: King Charles himself by his Charter, ratifying and approving their resolutions herein, as I have proved. Therefore this allegation is a most palpable falshood, there being no one Charter, nor Act of Par­liament [Page 49] that ever allowed or confirmed them before or since these Kings Declarations of their nullity. And admit these Bulls so confirmed, yet they ex end only to exempt the Uni­versity from Archiepiscopal, or Ordinaries Visitations and Jurisdictions, not from the Kings or Parliaments, not men­tioned nor intended in them.

I shall close up this with Matthew Parkers Authority, the first Arch Bishop of Canterbury, in Queen Elizabeths Raign. De Antiqu. Eccles. Brit. p. 35, (before the Arch-Bishops lives) where thus he writes of the Jurisdiction of the Arch Bishop of Canterbury, even in this Queens Raign, & of these Popes Buls nullity. Episcopatus et Diocaeses suae Provinciae quan­docunque, et quocunque ordine sibi videbitur expedire, visitat &c. Tamque latè patent hujus Archiepiscopatus privilegia, ut in loca firmissimi [...] septa ac munita privilegijs se insinuent. Multa onim loca quae a Metropolitica et Ordinaria Iurisdi­ctione se eximi procurassent, ab hujus tamen Authoritate immunia ac tuta esse non poterant. Inter quae ILLAE CELE­BRES CANTABRIGIENSIS ET OXONIENSIS in Anglia ACADEMIAE, quanquam peculiaria jura, et exemptionis privilegia sibi quondam á Papa concedi procuras­sent, illis tamen authoritate posteá Regia irriti [...] ac rescissis, IN CANTVARIENSIS ARCHIEPISCOPI AV­THORITATEM SESE REDDIDERVNT, et tam VISITATIONES SVAS SVBIRE COGVNTVR, quàm ad Synodalia sua concilia per Cancellarios acceduxt: In Can­tabrigiae Collegio S. Petri, cujus Eleensts Episcopus est pa­tronus, sede vacante, tàm Praefectum quàm socios admit­tit, et uni scholarium cui gratificare voluerit, vacantsem socie­tatem confert. OXONII, Collegiorum omnium animarum, et Mertoniensis est Patronus, ac in utrisque Ordinariam et OM­NIMODAM JVRISDICTIONEM EXERCET. So that he reputed this Jurisdiction of visiting the Vniversities, a Right belonging to the Arch-Bishops of Canterbury, not­withstanding any pretended exemptions, Charters or Sta­tutes to the contrary, then in being; or the Bulls of Pope Boniface the 8, which Ioannes Cajus: De Anti (que) Canta­brig. [Page 50] Academiae, p. 71. confesseth to be abolished, by the Le [...]ters Patents of K. Richard the 2. made to Arch-Bishop A­rundel, in the 20. year of his Raign, and after confirmed by King Henry the fourth, and an act of Parliament, in the 13 year of his Raign; as the Premises at large demonstrate.

2. I answer, that the objected clause of the Act of Parli­ament 25. H. 8. c. 21. extends not at all to the Vniversity of Oxford, or any Colledges in it, as is most evident by the ex­press words of the proviso, which I shal here transcribe.

Provided always, that the said Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, or any other person or persons, shal have no power or authority, by reason of this act, to visit or vex any Monasteries, Abbies, Priories, Colledges, Hospitall, houses, or other places Religi­ous. Which be or were exempt, before the making of this act, any thing in this act to the contrary thereof notwithstanding. But that Redress, Visitation and Confirmation shall be had by the Kings highness, his heires and successors, by Commission under the Great Seal, to be directed to such persons as shal be requisite for the same, in such Monaster [...]s Colledges, Hospitals, Prio­ries, houses and places Religious, exempt. So that no Visita­tion nor Confirmation shal from henceforth be had or made in, or at any such Monasteries, Colledges, Hospitals, Priories, hou­ses and places Religious Exempt, by the said Bishop of Rome; nor by any of his authority, nor by any out of the Kings Do­minions; nor that any person Religious, or other resiant in any the Kings Dominions, shal from henceforth depart out of the Kings Dominions, to or for any Visitation, Congregation, or assembly for Religion. But that all such Visitations, Congre­gations, and Assemblies shal be within the Kings Domi­nions.

By this it is apparant. First, that this act extends only to such See Speeds Catalogue of Religious hou­ses, Colledges and Hospitals. Colledges, is were Religious Houses, consisting of Menks and Friors, not to Colledges of Schollars in the University, as the coupling it with Monasteries, Abbies, Priories, and o­ther Places RELIGIOVS, and the last clause: Nor that A­NY PERSON RELIGIOVS, depart out of the Kings D [...] ­minions, to or for any Visitation or Assembly FOR RELIGI­ON, [Page 51] manifests: 2. That it excludes only the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, his Commissaries, and under- Officers, formerly mentioned in the body of the Act (the any other person or per­sons, intended in this clause) from visiting these exempted Col­ledges and Religious Houses: and that not simply, but BY REASON OF THIS ACT: Not the Houses of Parlia­ment, or any V [...]sitors of their appointment, 3. It extends only to Colledges, not to Vniversities, not once named or intended in this Law: And a Colledg (especially of Monks and Religious persons as here) is one thing, a Vniversity ano­ther, by the Objectors own concession. p. 6. 4. It reacheth only to such Colledges and Places Religious, as were exempt from Archiepiscopal and Episcopal Vis [...]ation, AT, & BEFORE THE MAKING OF THIS ACT; Therefore, not to the Universities and Colledges of Oxford and Cambridg, which at and before its making were not exempt, but subject both to the Arch-Bishops and Bishops Visitation and Jurisdi­ction, as I have largely proved, 5. Such exempt Colledges as are within this Act, are to be visited, not by the King in person, or such persons as he shall personally nominate, as the Objector dreams (no such words being in this Act) but, BY COMMISSION UNDER THE GREAT SEAL, TO SUCH PERSONS AS SHAL BE APPOINTED, and re­quisite for the same; & that either by both houses of Parliament, or by the Keepers of the Great Seal, who usually nominate and appoint all Commissioners of the Peace, Sewers, Oyer and Terminer, for Visitations, Inquiries, and the like, not the King in person. And the present Visitors of Oxford, being thus appointed by Ordinance of both Houses, and by commissi­on under the Great Seal; are sufficiently authorized to visit the Vniversity and Colledges in it, admit them places exempt within this proviso, as they are not. 6. Admit all that can be; it is clear, that both H [...]uses of Parliament by this Law conferred the Power of visiting Monasteries, Abbies, Priories, Colledges, Hospitals, houses, and other places Religious, exempt before this act, from Archiepiscopal and Ordinary Visitation, on the King, his heires and successors; who could not confer it on [Page 52] themselves. Ergo, by the self-same reason, both Houses may now by Ordinance and Commission, lawfully conferre the like power of visiting the University, though formerly exempted, on the Visitors now appointed by them; they being the supream Visitors and Reformers of all corruptions and abuses, both in Church and State, and appointing who shal be Visitors, and what person or person shal be visited, and what things inquired of in Visitations, in sundry other Acts of Parliament, as 31. E. 1. Rastal 304. 2 H. 5. c. 1. 25. H. 8. c. 21. 26. H. 8. c. 21. 26. H. 8. c. 1. 28. H. 8. c. 10. 31. H. 8. c. 13. 14. 2. E. 6. c. 1. 5. E. 6. c. 3. 1. & 2. Phil. & Ma­ry, c. 1. 8. 1. Eliz. c. 1. 2. 14. Eliz. c. 5.

3. I answer, it is true, That the ancient Priviledges, Liberties and Franchises of the respective Vniversities of Ox­ford and Cambridge, heretofore granted, ratified and confir­med by the Queens Highness, and her most noble Proge­nitors, for the better increase of learning, and further suppres­sing of Vice, are confirmed by Act of Parliament, An 13. Eliz. rot. 36. which incorporates both Vniversities; but it neither confirmed the Popes Bulls of exemption, nor gave them any Immunity from Archiepiscopal or Episcopal Juris­diction and Visitation, it being no ancient Libertie, Priviledg, or Franchise, ratified or confirmed to them by the Queen, or any of her noble Progenitors, nor yet once mentioned or intended in the Large Patent of Priviledges, of King Henry the 8. bearing date the 10, of April. in the 14, year of his R [...]ign, made and granted to the Chancellor, and Schollars of Oxford, nor in Queen Elizabeths Patent to the Chan­cellor, Masters and Schollars of the University of Cambridge, bearing date the 26, of April, in the 3, years of her Raign, par­ticularly confirmed by this Act. Therefore this Act makes nothing at all to purpose.

4. The Objected Commission in 19, Eliz, part. 12. in dors [...], pretends no exemption of the Vniversity and Colled­ges from Archiepiscopoll and Episcopall Visitation and Ju­risdiction simply; the thing not then in question; neither doth it acknowledg or confirm the Vniversities Priviledges, [Page 53] and all other Exemptions, in the very words of Boniface the 8. and acknowledg they had them by prescription &c. as is untruly surmised. But first, it mentions divers priviledges then clai­med by the Chancellor, Doctors and Schollars of the Vni­versity, and some exemptions in causes wholly belonging to the Chancellors conusance; and next it only complains of William Wilsons infringing these Priviledges and Exempti­ons contrary to his Oath, in complaining to the Deane of the Arches of Canterbury, and to Arch-Bishop Grindal, a­gainst the Bishop of Lincoln, and his Visitors of Lincoln Col­ledg in Oxford, for refusing to admit him to the Rectorship thereof to which he falsly pretended he was really and law­fully elected and presented; and for sending Inhabitions and Citations thence to the Bishop and his Visitors (who were Members of the Vniversity) to appear in the Arches, and with taking the final Examination and Determination of this e­lection unto themselves, which of right belonged to the Chancellor and University. Upon which bare suggestion and complaint, the Queen granted a Commission to two Bishops and six others, in a summary way; without any noise or for­mal proceedings, according to the truth and meer equity of the cause, by the best and most effectual means they could; De et super VERITATE PRAEMISSORVM et PRIVILEGI­ORVM et EXEMPTIONVM DICTAE VNIVERSITA­TIS, ac in causa et causis praedictis &c. procedere, et fine de­bito, omni appellatione et querela nuillitatis, et supplicatione quacunque remotis, terminare; statutis, Canonibus, et consue­tudinibus in contrarium editis, litisve pendentibus, in aliquo non obstante. So as this Commission doth no ways confirm the priviledges, nor ratifie the exemptions therein claimed by the Chancellor and Vniversity, by Charter, statutes and pre­scription; for then it would have remitted this cause of E­lection from the Deane of the Arches, and Arch Bishops Delegates to the Chancellor and Vniversity (to whom by ancient Priviledg they alleaged it did belong) but only refers the Examination of the truth of the Premises, Priviledges, Exemptions, and Determination of this cause and controversy [Page 54] about this Election to certain Commissioners, thus summarily to determine, any Statutes, Canons, Customes, or suits depending to the contrary, notwithstanding, and so rather doubts of, and questions the truth of there alleaged Vniversity Privi­ledges and Exemptions, then confirms them, though procured by the Chancellors and Universities means, and drawn up by their own directions.

But admit this Commission ratified and confirmed the Priviledges and Exemptions claimed in it by the Vniversity; yet the substance of them is no more then this: That See the Charter of 36 E, 3, pars. 1, mem. 5 Rot, Claus. 9. R. 2 & 15 R 2 mem 17. in Tur. London. to this effect, & p 41 all personal contracts, suits, controversies, and offences of Schollars and Priviledged persons arising within the precincts of the Vni­versity (except maihmes and fellonies) are to be tried and de­termined in the Vniversity before the Chancellor only, not be­fore any Arch-Bishops, Legates, Bishops, or Ordinary Judges, out of the Vniversity. Will it therefore follow; Therefore the Vniversity cannot without multiplied perjury, acknow­ledg any Visitor but the King, and such as are immediately sent by him; and is totally exempted, not only from all Archie­piscopal and Episcopal, but likewise from the Parliaments, and their Delegates Visitation? No doubtless; the rather, because King Charles himself, and his Couns [...] resolved, that neither this Commission, nor Here p 36 any other Charter of Pri­viledges or Exemptions, did free the Universities from the Arch-Bishop of Canterburies Metropolitical Visitation, much less then from both Houses Delegates, authorized by Ordi­nances and Commission for to visit it.

The 4 ^th. ground and argument urged for the Universities Exemption from our Visitation, Object. 4. is this. Page. 4. That all visita­tions of the Vniversities (except in Queen Maries Raign, by Cardinal Pool, as Popes Legat) were held by the respective Princes authority, and the persons visiting were immediatly sent by them, only as their Representatives, and who ever sate, the King visited; For which one Visitation, by K. Henry the 8. another by King Edward the 6. a third by Queen Elizabeths Visitors & Commissions are cited: therefore the Universities are exempt from all other Visitors, and those now appointed by both Houses, but not immediatly by the King.

[Page 55]To this I answer: Answer. First, That no King of England before Henry the [...], did either in Person or by Commission visit the Universities; and his once meer Visitation of them by Commissioners (if true, since I find no such Commission extant after much inquiry) was no exemption of them, in point of Law, from their former Visitors, no more then of the particular Colledges (which they likewise visited) from the Visitors designed them by their Founders. Secondly, King Edward the 6. his Commission, and Commissioners, for their Visitation, were made by the advice of the Lord Protector, and others of his privy Councel, (He being then an infant but of 11. years of age) & not made nor nominated personally and im­mediately by himself, as the Commissions themselves at­test: And for any Commission under the great Seal of Queen Eliz. for the Vniversities Visitation, it is to me a meer non liquet, which I cannot find upon search after it. Thirdly, King Charl [...] himself and his Counsel resolved upon f [...]l d [...]bate [...] that those Royal Visitations of his Predecessors did not ex­empt them from the Archbishops Visitation by his metro­political right. Therefore they can much less priviledg them against the present Visitors, commissioned under the great Seal and armed with both Houses right, from whom our Kings derived their power of Visitation at first.

The 5. Object 5. and principal Plea in point of conscience, most in­culcated, is this: Page 6. That the Heads and Members of the V­niversity are sworn by their respective Statutes, to allow or submit to no Visitation, but fr [...] those who are nominated by their Founder [...] Therefore they cannot, without multiplied perjury, submit to the present Visitors.

I answ: Answ. First, That this Oath obligeth them not as Members of the University, but only as fellows of particular Colledges or Hals: Therfore it cannot be pleaded against our visiting the University in general, but such particular Colledges only who are obliged by such an Oath. Secondly, This Oath was ne­ver made not prescribed with any intention to exempt those particular Colledges that take is from the Kings or his Com­missioners [Page 56] Visitations, as the Objectors (I presume) wil grant, not yet from the Archbishops, (which I have formerly proved) though not appointed Visitors by the Founders, to both which these Colledges have submitted, without any perjury or violation of their Oath; the end whereof was only to exclude all wrongful intrusions of co-ordinate or in­ferior visitors and persons, upon the Founders right, by way of usurpation, not any superior lawful Jurisdiction or Au­thority, which the Founders had neither power nor right to ab [...]idg. This is evident in the common case of Hospital; which though bound by Oath and Sta [...]utes to admit no other Visitors but such as their Founders appoint; yet the Ordi­naries both by Statute, Common and Canon Law, [...] and ought to visit them notwithstanding, as is evident by 2 H. 5. c. [...] by vertue of their superintendent power. Thirdly, This Oath is like the Oath of Homage at the common Law, ha­ving an implied [...]avi [...]g [...] it, as that hath an express: I be­come your man from this day forwards of life and limb and of earthly worship, Littleton l. 2. chap. 1 [...] and unto you shal be true and faithful, and bear you faith for the Tenement that I claim to hold of you; saving the faith that I ow unto our Soveraign Lord the King. O [...], salva [...]fide Deo & terrae Principi. The reason of which Saving is, because the King is the Soveraign Land-lord & Pa­ramount the Mean-lord. Which Oath of Homage. * Walter Bishop of Exon giving to his Tenants in Cornwal, nulla facta mentione de Homagio & Fidelitate Domino Regidebitis: thereupon one Michael de North exhibited an Information against, co [...]ks 1 Instit, f. 65 them in 6. E. [...] to the Kings Crown, [...]i ad damnum & ded [...]cus ipsius Domino Regis, And upon the same ground it is, that if a man hold [...] Ho [...]ge of divers Lords, he [...] say in the end of his Ho­mage done[?] savings he faith which I ow to our Lord the King; [...] other Lord [...]. If a man should make [...] solemn Vow (having been overtaken with wine) never to drink wine more; [...] one addicted to swearing, vow never to swear any more: yet these Vows would not extend to exclude[?] him [Page 57] from drinking wine at the Lords Supper: or taking an oath upon summons or just occasion in any Court of Justice, or before a lawful Magistrate. So if a servant swear, not to bewray his masters secrets; or a fellow of a Colledg, not to discover the secrets of the Ho [...]se, or a Grand-Ju [...]or, not to discover his fellows secrets; yet these Oa [...] binde them not when they are called to discover them in a legal way, upon a just cause before a lawful Magistrate, upon any Action of Account, B [...]ls of discovery or trial; it being not within the intention of these Oaths, nor in the power of those who pre­scribed them to restrain such legal discoveries, or abridg the superior Magistrates power to the obstructing of publick ju­stice: upon which gro [...]nd, the Lords and others of the privy Councel heretofore, and this very Pa [...]l [...]ament in the case of the Earl of Strafford, when summoned as witness [...], [...] have without pe [...]jury, or breach of trust discovered their Fellow-Councellors evil counsel & secret advice to his Majesty, con­trary to the Letter of their Oaths. Fourthly, It is the Apo­stles express command, Col. 3. 20, 22, Children obey your Parents in all things, for this is wel-pleasing unto the Lord. Servants obey your Masters in all things according to the flesh: Yet all Divines, See Gratian Caus. 11, qu. 3 Canonists, and Casuists, resolve: That if Parents and Masters command one thing; and Kings, Magi­strates or God himself command another thing; Children and Servants in such a case ought rather to obey the Magistrates, King and God himself, then either their Parents or Masters; notwithstanding these universal precepts of obeying them in all things; which, have this implyed qu [...]lification involved in them, to wit, in all lawful things not contrary to the supe­rior just commands of the King, Magistrate or God himself, which being the superior powers, ought principally to be o­beyed before natural Parents and Masters. Hence is that known resolution of Augustine subscribed by Caus. 11. q. 3 Gratian, and all Canonists. Quiresistit potestati De [...]rdinations resistit. Sed quid [...] Iubentur [...] quod non, debe [...] facere? hic sanè conte [...] potestate [...]. [...] Legum grad [...]s ad­verte [Page 58] verte: Si aliquid [...]uss [...]rit curator, faciendum est; non tamen s [...] contra Proconsul jubeat. Non utique contemnis potestatem sed eligis majori servire; nec hic debet minor irasci si maior pr [...]e­latus est. Rursus, si ipse Consul aliquid jubeat, & aliud jubeat Imperator; vel si aliud jubeat Imperator, et aliud Deus, quid i [...]dicatis? Maior potestas De [...]s: da veniam ô Imperator: Tu carcerem, ille gehen [...]am mi [...]atur. Hic jam tibi assu [...]nd [...] est [...]ides tua tanqu [...]m scutum, in quo possis om [...]ia ignea iacula inimici oxtinguere. This resolve of his, wil dissolve the pre­sent Objection; that these Oaths and Statutes of particular Colledges, wil exclude all other Visitors appointed by an equal or inferior, but not by a superior Authority, as the pre­sent V [...]sitors are. Fifthly, I find an express president in point. When Fox Acts and Monuments Vol. 3. p. 765, 766. Cardinal Pool by his D [...]legates v [...]si [...]d the Vniver­sity of Cambridg in Queen Maries days, Robert Brassy Master of Kings Colledg, (aworthy old man both for his wisdom and hoar hairs) hearing his own nam [...]ecited next after the Vice-Chancellors, said. He was there present as all the other were; neverthelesse for as much as the Reformation of his House was WHOLY RESERVED to the discretion of the Bishop of Lincoln, not only by the Kings Letters Pattents, but also by grant of confirmation of the Bishop of Rome himself, under a penalty, if he should suffer any stranger to intermed [...]e, he open­ly pro [...]essed in discharge of his duty, that [...]nlesse their, Com­mission gave them Authority and Iurisdiction upon, the Col­ledg, either by Our Ordi­nances and C [...]mmissions do so in ex­press words. expresse words or manifest sense, he utterly ex­empted himself from being present. This his exception they took all in greas displeasure, alledging, that they were fully authorized for the order of the matter by the Cardinal, out of whose Iurisdiction no place nor person was exempted: where­fore he had done evil, to cal in question their Authority, so wel known to all men. The next day the Delegates going to visit this Colledg, Mr. Brassy the Master excusing himself, made the same exception to them then he had before. To which the Bishop of Chester, with a frowning look and angry coun­ [...]enance, said; He needed not to repeat the things he had prote­sted [Page 59] before, nor they to make answer any more to[?] those things wherein they had sufficiently informed him before. He rather feared that their quarrel was not good, that they made such a do about it, and s [...]ught such starting [...]ol [...]. For so were dis­eased persons oft times wont to do, whe [...] for the pain and grief they are not able to abide a stronger medicine: As though that any ever were able to grant so strong a priviledg, as to withstand the Popes authority. As for the Popes Letters, they must needs make on his side and those that were with him, (and could not in any wise be alledged against him. Therefore he ad­monished him to desist from his [...]nprofitable altercation, and to conform himself and his to such things as were then in doing. Whereupon the Master and Schollers submitted to their Visita­tion, and were at sworn and examined to such interroga [...]ries as were propounded them; but some of them swore conditionally, so as their faith formerly given to the Colledg were not impeached thereby; Which submission and president in print, in case of the Pope and his Legates Visitors should induce all these Oxonians whom it concerns, in like manner to submit to both Houses Visitors, (having express power by Ordinance and Commission to visit all Colledges &c.) notwithstanding these objected Oaths and Statutes.

Having (as I conceive) satisfactorily answered all Obje­ctions against the Jurisdiction and Power of the Oxford Vi­sitors, Obiect. 6. I shal briefly answer some allegations against their persons and proceedings.

Their exceptions to all their persons in general (and Page 4, 5. that with wonder and just scorn) is; That they are their fellow-subjects; When as for almost 800 years before they have been the care and stri [...]e of Princes. King Alured himself visits, An. 806. Edw. [...]. & Rich. 2. descided Controversies in the Vni­versity. The late Visitations performed by Commissioners, were by the chief Nobility of the Kingdom; And his Maiesty that now is visited Christ Church personally, with 8 Lord [...] of the Coun­cel. To others of them in particular; That they [...] their own members, who having sworn the observation of their Statutes, [Page 60] Liberties and Customs, cannot appear as Iudges over them without a violation of their Oaths, nor yet without a manifest opposition of Nature, where Do not the King and Par­liament, let parts judg the whole? part Iudg the whole; and the Laws of Iustice too, especially if they consider the Interests and Engagements may often professions of the most active instru­ments of this work.

To the fifth I answer; Answer. First, that if these Objections were of moment, they might all be made against all proceedings of Justices of Ass [...], Justices of Peace, and Juries, at Assi [...]es and Sessions; yea, against Magna Chart [...], and the fun­damental Laws of the Realm, which enact; That no man shal be condemned or proceeded against, but by the Lawfull Iudgment of his PEERS, not of Kings and Nobles, of his Su­perior [...]; And against all proceedings in the University it self, either in Congregation, Convocation or the Vice-Chancellors Court, where Schollars and others are judged and ordered by fellow-subjects, and the whole University, by some particu­lar Members of it, without any guilt of perjury or violence offered, either to nature or common justice. 2. I answer, that though the Visitors nominated by the Houses, are but their fellow-subjects, and neither Kings nor Nobles, yet many of them are persons of quality and reputation, meet for such an imployment. Two of them are dignified with the honorable order of Knighthood, by the King himself; Sir Natha. Brent. and one of them formerly in visiting as Vicar General to the late Arch-Bishop of Canterbury (Chancellor of the University of Oxford) who thought him worthy to visit the whole Province of Can­terbury, and therefore fit and meet to visit the Vniversity. Others of them are Esqui [...]es by birth, place, or profession; o­thers dignified with the highest. Titles the Vniversitie could bestow upon them, where they have been ancient. Governors, and the meanest of them are sufficiently eminent both for pi­ety and learning: Therefore, not to be slighted with wonder and just scorn, especially by their equals, or inferiors in all re­spects, as most in the University are 3. That King Alured him­self visited the Vniversity in person, or any other of our Kings [Page 61] after him; it is untrue; as for King Charles and his Nobles vi­siting of Christ Church personally, otherwise then by resor­ting to it, to behold a Play, or Pastorall heretofore, or to lodg in it in these times of War; I never heard of it til now: That King Alured, Edward the 1, Richard the 2, (yea Henry the 4, and King Charles too) did themselves decide Controversies between the University and others about their Privi­ledges, and concerning the Arch-Bishops Metropoliticall Right to visit them, is true; the distempers of the University requiring it, who would rest satisfied with no meaner parties decision; yet no [...] her of them visited it in Person or by Com­mission. Thirdly in the Visitation of the Universities by the Kings Commissions, the Visitors named, were not all Princes and Nobles, as is suggested. There are but two such Com­missions extant on record; the one in 2 Ed. 6. pars. 3. in Dorso, for visiting the University of Cambridg; wherein Sir William Paget, Contributor of the Kings houshold, Thomas Smith the Kings Secretary, Iohn Cheek the Kings Tutor [...] William Mayor Doctor of Law; one of the Master of Re­quests, and Dean of Pauls, and Thomas W [...]die the Kings Physitian, or any 7. 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. or one of them were the sole Visitors, not one of them a Peer, much less of the chief Nobi­lity. The other in 3 Edward 6. pars. 2. for visiting the University of Oxford; wherein Iohn Earle of Warwick, high Chamberlain, Henry Bishop of Lincoln, and Richard Bi­shop of Rochester, William Paget, Controulor of the hou­shold, William Peter Knight, the Kings Secretary, Richard Fox the Kings Almoner and Tutor, Simon Heynes Dean of Ex [...]ter, Christopher Nevense Doctor of Law, and Richard Morison. Esquire, or any 7. 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. or one of them were nominated Visitors; the meanest of them only doing the work, without any exceptions to their inferior quality. What Delegates Cardinal [...]ole appointed to visit both V­niversities you have heard already; and that our Arch-Bi­shops and Bishops have usually appointed as mean persons as any nominated by the Parliament, to visit their P [...]ovi [...]ces and [Page 62] Diocesses is wel known to all. In fine, the Visitors now ap­pointed have no absolute definitive power in all things, but are subordinate to the Honorable Committee of Lords and Commons for regulating the University, to whom they are to certifie all their proceedings, & to whom there is liberty of appealing granted to any that deem themselves in­jured: so as this Honorable Committee, and both Houses are in truth, the real Visitors, the others but their Substitutes. Therefore these scorns against their persons (which must re­flect upon the Parliaments wisdom and judgment) might have wel bin spared. As for any of their interests, engagements and professions, I shall beleeve they are all publike and syncere, til the contrary be demonstrated.

The next exception is to their proceedings; Object. 7. Page. 5. That their power was not manifested by some legal way &c.

I answer; Answer. That this is untrue, [...]or it was first manifested by a printed Ordinanos of both Houses, wherein their names and power were comprised. 2. In a publike Citation, sub­scribed by most of them, of which all the University, Col­ledges and Halls had legal notice. 3. By an additional Ordi­nance of both Houses, and a Commission under the Great Seal of England, of which they had a copy delivered to them upon their own request, by the Visitors that sate.

The last Objection Objection. is, Page. 6. That there is now no necessity nor want of a Visitation &c.

I answer; Answer. That this is to question the wisdom of both Houses, who deem a Visitation necessary; and to prejudge the Visitors, who may find more enormities in the persons to be visited, then they can yet discern in themselves, who unusquisque sui ipsius ini­quus[?] Iudex. are no competent Iudges in their own cause. However, if their Inno­cency be such as to evidence to the world, they are not those Monsters, that their Enemies Charactor would speak them; Nor yet are altogether unworthy their Education, or their Founders Magnificance; as the Objector blasons them; they have then the lesse cause to refuse or decline the Visitors test, and wil come off with greater honor to themselves, and [Page 63] shame to their unjust Accusers, if they appear such after strick­test S [...]rutiny, then if they had not at all been brought to such a publike Tryal.

I have now made good all my Positions, and answered all the Universities allegations in point of Law or Conscience against their present Visitors Jurisdiction; not out of any de­sign to diminish or infringe the Universities just Priviledges (which I have been formerly sworn to maintain) in the least title, but out of a real affection to the Universityes wel­fare, and a desire to rectifie the erronious Judgments, and sa­tisfy the scrupelous Consciences of all present Opposers of the Visitors power, to prevent those tragicall effects which their Obstinacy and Contumacy in this high contest are like inevitably to produce, to their own and the Vniversities pre­judice, if persisted in. I shal ever endeavour to my power, that the University may enjoy all her just Rights and Privi­ledges, with Subordination to both Houses superior Authority, and flourish more abundantly now then ever in piety, vertue, and all sorts of learning, which they cannot take unkindly at my hands. I shal only add: That as the Vniversity of Cam­bridg submitted to the Ordinance of both Houses of Parlia­ment, made for its regulation, dated 22. Jan. 1643. which enabled the Honorable Ea [...]le of Manchester alone, to appoint a Committee under him, who should have full power to call be­fore them all Provosts, Masters and Fellows of Colledges, Students and Members of that Vniversity, who were scanda­lous in their lives, or ill affected to the Parliament, or fomen­tors of these unnatural wars, or wilful refusers to obey the Or­dinances of Parliament, or deserters of their places of residence and to send for witnesses, and examine any complaint or testi­mony against them upon Oath, and to certify their names with the Charge and proofs against them to the said Earle, who had power thereby given him to sequester and elect them. and put others in their places; which he accordingly executed without any such publike opposition as we now find at Ox­ford: So I hope the Vniversity of Oxford wil receive so good [Page 64] satisfaction of their scruples, from the premises, as shal en­duce them to a like submission to their present Visitors, autho­rized by both Houses Ordinances, and a Commission under the great Seal, without any further plea or demurrer, or else leave them without excuse to both Houses severest justice, for their wilful contempt of their Soveraign power, against which they have publikely (in words) disavowed the least op­posi [...]ion or dispute, and yet strenuously oppose it in realli­ty, by this contest against their Visitors, upon meer groundles Pretences so frequently over-ruled against them heretofore, that it can be b [...]t meer obstinacy in them to insist upon them any longer now.