A SHORT CENSURE OF THE BOOK OF W. P. ENTITLED, The University of Oxford's Plea, Refuted.   printer's or publisher's device 
SAPIENTIA FELICITATE   depiction of book 
ACADEMIA OXONIENSIS  
Printed in the Year, 1648.   

A short Censure of the Book of W. P. ENTITLED, The University of Oxford's Plea refuted.  
I May not in respect of the place where I am, LONDON, wherein it is perilous, if not capital, to write Law: nor I cannot in respect of my occasions, which will not permit me too, I have not leisure to write much, make any large refutation of that Book: But shall only content myself with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the work of one day, A brief Censure of the Book: First, in general; next, in particular.  
In this, and other of his Writings, I find the Author to profess much diligence, as if he were an industrious and a voluminous Compiler of the Acts and Speeches of other men, many of them are very truly quoted, some misreported, most misunderstood. The man may be thought (perhaps) to be one of a large and vast memory, but certainly of a narrow and slender judgement, which by an infelicity in the brain (in the opinions of Aristotle in his Problems, and the Author of The Trial of Wits) do often meet together: Whence it commonly comes to pass, that at the end and close of his labours, he leaves his adversaries with more truth, or at least more evidence on his side, than he first found about him; as in this Book against his once Mother the University of Oxford shall more appear.  
2. And therefore I come in the second place to a more particular discussing of this his last piece, The University Plea, (which in his Book he vaunts to have fully refuted) he makes to be this:  

Pag. 2.  That the right of Visiting the University of Oxon, is only in the King's Majesty: and that it is exempt from all other Jurisdiction, both by Foundation, Prescription, and several Grants of Exemption.  
Whether this be the Universities Plea by their Delegates, in totidem verbis, which he again repeats, pag. 7, 8. calling it A false Plea, I am not able to say, having now forgotten it: But because he often mentions it in his Script, in the very same words, I will believe he hath not committed that fault of misrecitall here: But I am confident he hath misunderstood it quite throughout. And therefore in my duty and love to my dear Mother the University of Oxford, I will be bold to render her sense and meaning of her Plea in these words a little more enlarged.  

meaning ●●e Plea.  That the Supreme and Primitive Right of Visiting the University of Oxford, as it is an University, (not of a particular College in it, which hath a special kind of endowment of another consideration) is only in the King's Majesty, as an ancient inseparable jurisdiction annexed to his Crown. And that it is exempt from all other jurisdiction (but what is immediately derived from him) both by Foundation, Prescription, and several Grants of Exemption, are legally to be understood, especially at this day, since the dissolution of Papal Supremacy by the Statutes of 24 H. 8. c. 12. 25 H. 8. c. 19 20. & 21. & 26 H. 8. c. 1. & 1 Eliz. c. 1. etc.  
Against this Plea thus explained, he hath alleged not one material thing in all his Book, which I shall make appear by assailing his five men of straw, which he hath drawn forth against this Plea, which he calls his five Positions, which I shall thus endeavour to shake, if not bring down to that Nothing on which they seem founded.  
1. His first Position is this, 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.  
Wherein he saith just nothing: for before Oxford was made a Bishopric, 'twas never denied but the Bishop of Lincoln was Diocesan over the Parochial Churches, nor the Clergy there be within his jurisdiction, quatenus Ordinarius loci; but what is that to the Visitation of the University, being quite another thing, and belonging of right to the King, or to such as are immediately sent by him, as W. P. truly allegeth their saying, pag. 54. and maketh it a doubt himself, whether the University was anciently of right under the Visitation of the Bishop of Lincoln, because he saith (if not Visitation) whereby he maketh his Position not positive, contrary to all Logic: And the proofs he brings for his first Position, makes the truth of it more suspicious; for he hath them all out of History, as Matthew Paris, B. Goodwin, Archbishop Barker, p. 4, 5, 6, 7. and not out of any authority of Law: And a most learned Lawyer adviseth Students to take heed of Chronicle-Law as false and erroneous. 
Sir Edw: 〈◊〉 Pref. to th● Rep.  And all his Historical proofs do not affirm that the Bishops of Lincoln did visit out of right, but only they did it de facto, Et à facto ad jus non valet argumentum.  
His second Position being the Body-horse of his Team, Position. 2 and that which beareth the stress of his whole Book, is verbatim thus:  

pag. 3.  Secondly, that it was anciently of Right, and so continued till this Parliament, under the visitation and jurisdiction of the Archbishops of Canterbury, as Metropolitans (who have frequently visited this University, and Cambridge too) as being within their Province, and have been acknowledged and adjudged by K. Richard 2. K. Henry 4. and an whole Parliament in his Reign; and by K. Charles himself, upon solemn Debate to be lawful Visitors of it, de Jure. And that these three Kings and the Parliament of 13 Hen. 4. have by their Charters and Votes, absolutely disclaimed the King's sole Right of visiting the Universities; and always 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 Hen. 8. ever visiting either of the Universities, for aught appears by any Authentic Records.  
This Position is not doubtful and uncertain as the former; but yet it wants not that fault (which is usual with him) of contradiction to his former position; for if it was Anciently of Right, and so continued till this Parliament, for the Archbishop of Canterbury to visit the Universities, de Jure, (as he speaks) and so adjudged by three Kings, and one Parliament; than it could not Anciently and of right be visited by the Bishops of Lincoln, which he avers in his first position: But this second, nor the proofs and records he brings in it, doth give any jot of satisfaction to the University Plea, but that the Right of Visitation is still in the Crown, and ever was an undoubted Right of the Crown: And that these Visitations of the Arch-Bishops, unless they had Commission so to do, under the Kings own proper Broad Seal, were mere usurpations upon the Crown, which I shall make thus shortly and plainly to appear.  
It is very well known to men studied in our Laws, That none but the Kings of England could be truly and properly the Founders of the Universities, (par Caesari opus) for it is not the erecting of Buildings that makes an University, but the dedicating and consecrating of a place, (whether already built, or to be built) to the Muses as a Seminary and Nursery of Learning to perpetuity, the Incorporation of it with Governors, Statutes, and Laws, the Endowment of it with Franchises, Privileges, Immunities, etc. (which none can do but the King) is chief and properly the Foundation of an University. It is an old Rule in Law, Patronum faciunt Does, aedificatio, fundus, either of these three make a man a Founder, but chief the first; which is Endowment, being to an University all in all; and therefore as Founder of the Universities, the Right of Visitation did as truly and properly belong to the King, as did the right of Investure into Episcopacies, of which the King was likewise Founder, till the Pope's Canon Law was first admitted into this Kingdom, which fell out in the days of K. Hen. 1. and King Stephen. And afterwards the Extravagants of Pope Boniface the 8. (called by that name, because they were extra Canonem) the admission of these Laws into this Kingdom, together with the Pope's Bulls, swollen the Archiepiscopall Authority into a Papal Jurisdiction (for so was Anselme called in the days of Hen. 1. (Alterius orbis Papa) which continued swelling much worse afterwards, till it received a Purgation in the days of Hen. 8. And by this usurped power it was, that the Bishops of themselves, without the King's Authority did visit Universities, and do other Acts belonging to the Crown, until the days of Hen. 8. etc. I could say much more on this jubject, but Mr. Pryn saves me a labour, for it doth not appear by those two Charters (which he so much boasts of throughout his Book) of Rich. 2. and Hen. 4. and confirmed afterwards by Act of Parliament, 13 Hen. 4. that the Archiepiscopall visitation of the Universities, was any other than a usurpation, de facto, permitted by Rich. 2. and Hen. 4. not a Jurisdiction of Right. This appears plainly by the Charter of 12. Caroli which he mentions in this Position, and citys at large pag. 35, 36, 37, 38. (which Charter mentions the two forwer Charters, where it is thus said, Primo & ante omnia per probationes legitimas & per concessionem utriusque partis nobis constabat, Nos jure Coronae nostrae Angliae habuisse & habere potestatem visitandi Universitates praedictas, quoties & quandocunque nobis & successoribus nostris visum fuerit: And afterwards, pag. 38. where the King gives the Archbishop leave to visit, (and giving of leave declares a right) not once in his life, but as oft as he shall see reasonable cause, which hath this restriction, Ex causâ rationabili, etc. per nos & successores nostros primitus approbanda: By which it appears that the granting of this Visitation of the Universities belongs to the Crown, and the cause of Visiting after the Grant must be first approved by the King: and therefore his saying, pag. 10. and pag. 21. that Rich. 2. and H. 4. in their Charters disclaimed the sole Right of visiting the Universities: and pag. 39 that King Charles in his Charter to the late Archbishop disavowed it; is most notoriously untrue, and no such thing is to be found in them.  
The Author W. P. in the prosecution of the proof of his second Position, hath consumed almost 40. pages of paper, and I believe as many days of time, and the Logic of all amounts but to this, that the Archbishops of Cant. have anciently been Visitors of the University of Oxford, and have so been confirmed by the Letters Patents of three Kings of England. The Arch-Bishops of Cant. are now extinct, and gone (which this Author well knows, having a chief hand in cutting off the last) Ergo, the King and such as are immediately sent by him, (for so is the Universities Plea to be understood, and is so confessed by W. P. pag. 54.) are not the sole Visitors of the University: How this Argument holds together, leave it for young Sophisters to judge; Only I pity the great pains he hath taken to join together a rope of sand.  
The University did expect that so learned a man, as he by voluminous quotations desires to appear, would have given satisfaction in declaring who had the sole Right of her Visitation, if the King and those immediately appointed by him had it not, whether the two Houses of Parliament, or one of them, if so, then by what way and means they had that Right, whether by immediate Commission from the King, if so, then whether by the Great Seal, which was made by the two Houses, or by what other? For that the King in his last Message to the Houses questions the validity of it, as that which he saith was made without his Warrant▪ Or if it had his warrant for those persons that were to visit, whether they first acquainted the King with the cause of Visitation, (the words of the King's Charter being Ex legitimâ causa per nos & successores nostros primitus approbanda; with divers more in that kind, which would have given much satisfaction to the double charged Consciences of that poor University, in their Oaths to God, and their Allegiance to their Prince. But not a word of any of these in his Book, wherein he might have much righted the Houses and himself▪ only he makes much ado in excusing the persons of the Visitors, and freeing them from the exceptions taken against them, pag. 59, 60, 61, 62. Only one visible exception is forgot, which I believe was thought of by the University, though not expressed; viz. the exception taken by an ancient Law against a Visitor or Judge, that he was to be integri corporis, as well as Animi, and therefore by the ancient Canons if a Visitor or Judge had Corpus mutilatum, or membram abscissum, it was an exception; And therefore if there were cause of such an exception against any of these Visitors, it had been his part to have cleared it, that so he might not have appeared male audere in that University which he was to Visit.  
The other three Positions, as the Refutes doth not much insist upon them, so it will not hurt the University in her Plea to grant them all.  
Position. 3 For as to the third, before the Statutes of 25. and 26. H. 8. 1 E. 6. & 1 Eliz. Cardinal Poole the Pope's Legate, as Legatus factus, the Archbishop of Canterbury as Legati nati, might and did Visit without the King's Commission; And so might Chancellors of the University which heretofore were Clergymen; but then this Visitation was more the facto, then de jure; But since those Statutes all the Visitations of the Universities have been by the King's immediate Commission. And so did Sir William Cecil, 1. Eliz. visit Cambridge, as Chancellor of that University.  
Position. 4 His fourth Position is, That most particular Colleges and Halls in both Universities, have their particular Visitors appointed by the Founders, to whose Visitation they are subject, and not to the Kings.  
A most true position, and the University strives not with him in it if he can rest there, she only dislikes his irrational inference thereupon, Ergo the Right of Visiting the University of Oxford, is not only in the King's Majesty: Much like to this Argument, the Lord Mayor of London is the proper Governor of that City, Ergo, the King hath not the sole right of governing the Kingdom, contrary to the Statute of the 1. Eliz. and the Oath of Supremacy, calling him the only Supreme Governor: According to the lines of proportion and similitude, as a City is to a Kingdom, so is a particular College to an University; The King sole Governor of the Kingdom, the Lord Major with the Aldermen, etc. sole Governors of the City; the King (or those whom he immediately appoints, which must ever be understood) sole Visitors of the University of Oxford; the Bishop of Lincoln sole Visitor of Brazen-nose College: when the King comes into the City, the Lord Major yields up his Sword, and his Government is for that time suspended: So when the King visits the University of Oxford, the Visitation of the Bishop of Lincoln is then suspended, like as in the Metropolitical Visitation, the Episcopal Visitation is suspended. And these subordinations are full of Harmony, and do not contradict each other, as he thinketh when he thus speaketh, How then the King can truly and really be styled the sole Founder and Visitor of the University of Oxford when there are but three Colleges there of his Foundation, and but one of his Visitation, I desire the University at leisure to resolve.  
Truly, his once Mother, the University of Oxford hath resolved it already, and will take no further time; But wisheth him hereafter to be a good Child, and leave an old fault of his of mistaking the question: For the University never made it a Question, Whether the King was sole Founder or Visitor of a particular College, but of an University, they being two distinct things, distinct Corporations, having distinct Governors, distinct Officers, distinct Statutes, etc.  
But the Conclusion of this fourth Position may not be passed by without reproof, where he calls this Right of the King's sole visiting the University; The Kings pretended Royal Monopoly; which being spoken of him a sacred person, especially in this his day of affliction by his own natural born Subject, and by a man professing Religion, favours more of a son of Shimei, than a servant of Christ.  
Position. 5 That the pretended Grants of exemption from Visitation, etc. now pleaded by the University, were not procured from the Kings of England, but from Popes by their Bulls, and that our Kings themselves and one Parliament, have damned them as derogatory to the King's Prerogative, etc.  
This Position he braggingly saith, pag. 43. that he hath already substantially proved in every syllable, amongst the proofs of his second Position, and surceaseth any farther proof, But concludes thus bitterly against the University in this manner: The Author of the Universities Privileges was very ill advised to plead the Pope's exploded illegal Antichristian Bulls in Bar against the Jurisdiction of both Houses, and the Visitors deputed by them, in these anti-papall times of Reformation; which might justly induce them to suspect, that the Heads and Members of the University have a higher and more reverend esteem of the Popes usurped abandoned authority and illegal Bulls, then of both Houses rightful power and Ordinances. A very reproachful, and that though I could say more, a most envious and causeless Censure, for the Pope's Bulls were leges temporum, though not leges scripturarum (as they say in schools) and custom and time had set them up for Laws; and as they were pleadable then, so in the way that the University hath pleaded those Bulls, they may be pleaded at this day, without making such a noise and roaring against all the Heads and Members of the University (not a man excepted) I will give one instance instead of many; divers Parliament-men have Impropriations of Church-livings, and some of them (perhaps) discharged from payment of Tithes by reason of the Cisterstian order (an Order of Friars exempted by the Pope's Bulls from the payment of Tithes of Lands in their own possession) shall not a Parliament-man therefore in a suit against him for Tithes plead the Pope's Bull by way of discharge without being counted a Papist, and inclining to Popery? there is no doubt but he may. Besides, the pleading of the Pope's Bulls of Exemption by the University was so far from Popery, that nothing could more advance their Prince's supremacy and their own Loyalty, having this inference in it, That if the Pope by an usurped power upon the Crown could visit and exempt from Visitation at his pleasure: how much more might the King which hath in himself that ancient, true, and proper Right of the Crown?  
And therefore for Conclusion, the University of Oxford out of her Motherly affection to one that pretends to be her son, adviseth W. P. to read often that place, Deut. 27. v. 16. Cursed be he that setteth light by his Father or his Mother, and all the people shall say, Amen. The same application of it to his Prince the Father of the Country; And the Lord give him repentance for the Evil he hath done.  
And thus have I shortly examined all his five Positions, and his proofs of them, being the substance of his whole Book.  
I will now for Conclusion pass my particular Censure upon it in the words of the Emperor Julian upon a Book brought to him containing a Confession of Faith of the best Church in the world; And what he corruptly censured of that Confession, I will truly and sincerely censure the same of the script of W. P. in refutation of the Plea of the best University, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I have read it, I have considered it, and I do utterly condemn it.  Et cedo mihi quemvis arbitrum. 
FINIS.