WHEREAS some objections have been suggested as if the place of Cu­stos Archivorum were inconsistent with that of a Savilian Professor, be­cause of those words Nullum [acceptet] in Vniversitate publicum officium (ut Vicecancellarii, Procuratoris, Clerici Mercatûs, & similium,) sub poena amissionis omnis juris quod in Professione sua praetendere valeat. (Though if it were so, a Savilian Professor were no more incapable of being chosen to that office, then a Fellow of a Colledge to bee chosen Head, or presented to a living, which if he accept he must loose his Fellowship.) These Reasons are exhibited to the contrary.

1. That by publicum officium, is not here meant, all publike imployment in the Univer­sity whatsoever, is manifest: For if so, then might not the Savilian Professors be ordinary Delegates of Convocation, Delegates for Accounts, for Apeales, for Printing, for sur­veying Records, for making and reforming Statutes, &c. contrary to the known constant usage of the University.

2. The Statute expressely declaring, what kind of Publike Offices it doth intend, (to wit, that of Vice-Chancellor, Proctor, Clerk of the Market, & such as are like these,) is not to be extended beyond such as are there mentioned. Now 'tis manifest, that this is nei­ther one of those three there mentioned, nor yet of like nature with any of them: They being all Offices of Magistracy, and publike Government: this only a place of Trust.

3. The Imployment of Custos Archivorum, is so far from being one of the Offices intended in that Statute, that 'twas not then in being when that Statute was made: and therefore cannot be reputed one of those there intended; but at the most Casus omissus.

If it be further objected, That though it be not within the letter of the Statute, yet there may be as much reason why the Founder might have forbidden this as some of those which bee did forbid, and therefore that it might be thought within the equity of the Statute:

'Tis answered; Not onely, That we are not to enquire, especially in penal Laws, what might have been forbidden, but what is: or, That & caetera's, and par ratio, are not, in Law, of any great weight for drawing in other crimes beside what are particularly ex­pressed (though in point of favour, they are good grounds for relief in equity, against the rigor of a Law:) or, That penal Laws are to be interpreted in the more favourable sense.

But also, That, in equity, there is much more reason for relief against those particu­lars which are expressed, than to draw in such as are not: Because the Revenues of the Savilian Professors come much short, not onely of what Sir Henry Savil did intend to set­tle, but even of what he thought he had, and the Statutes do expresly presume to be, actu­ally settled. And therefore no reason to make the prohibition of other employments more strict than he hath made it, but rather more lax.

And upon this account, not onely Dr. Bainbrige (though a Professor of Sir Henry Savils own appointment in his life time) continued, with it, his practise of Physick (an imploy­ment both of greater gain, and greater diversion, than this of Custos Archivorum) and also a place in Merton College: But also Dr. Turner, before a Committee of Parlia­ment, justified his holding a Fellowship (though in that Statute expresly forbid) together with his Professors place: And Mr. Greaves injoyed the profits of his Professors place, together with a Fellowship of Merton College. And though these two latter examples, being against the Letter of the Statute, might therefore be thought more disputable; yet in the present case, where no such thing is, there is no reason upon pretense of equity, to make the Statute stricter than it is.

So that neither the letter of the Statute, nor the equity of it, can in reason be inter­preted to exclude the place of Savilian Professor, as inconsistent with that of Custos Ar­chivorum.