THE CASE OF Exeter-Colledge, IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD. Related and Vindicated.  
LONDON; Printed, and are to be Sold by Randal Tailor near Stationers-Hall, 1691.   

TO THE READER.  
THe late Proceedings of the Bishop of Exeter, as Visitor of Exeter-Colledge in Oxford, were so directly contrary both to the Statutes of the College, and the Laws of this Realm, that the Rector and Fellows, who opposed his Lordship therein, little thought there would have been any cause to publish a Vindication of their conduct in that Affair, especially when they found that his Lordship had no other grounds for his Porceeding, then what have been published in a late Pamphlet, Entitled An Account of the Proceedings of the Right Reverend Father in God Jonathan etc. It was hoped the weakness of that Pamphlet would be obvious to all judicious and intelligent Readers; and that the badness of his cause was sufficiently detected by the weakness of his defence.  
But since it appears that some persons, who know no better, or are willing to be deceived, are imposed upon either by the Bishop's Character, or the credit of two Civilians, and perhaps some bold dashes in the late Pamphlet (as Greatness and Reputation are apt to give a colour to things, that in themselves have none) They began to conceive it might not be improper to let the unthinking part of their adversaries understand, that they had much more to allege in their own Vindication, than had been said to run them down. Yet was this design retarded, because one part of their Cause, to wit the Visitor's Power as Ordinary, was in contest betwixt him and the Rector in the Court of King's Bench. But that having been since decided in favour of the Rector, it's hoped the judgement of the Court upon that part of the Cause may facilitate the belief that the rest of his Lordship's Proceedings have been all of a piece with that.  
The design of the ensuing discourse, is to satisfy all that are concerned, or will concern themselves in this Controversy, that there was just cause for Mr. Colmer's first and second Expulsion; that his Appeal to the Visitor, was not only not warranted by, but directly against the very letter of the Statutes of the College, that Dr. Master's his executing a Commission from the Bishop, was a Visitation, within the intention of the Statutes, and that the Visitor has no Episcopal jurisdiction over the College or any of its Members. Which particulars, if they be cleared, we are not concerned to give a superfluous answer to little and insignificant suggestions that trench nothing at all on the merits of the Cause. The Author of the Account has that province left entirely to himself, of urging immaterial passages, and misrepresenting them too; Our design is peace, which to obtain, all expressions of rancour and harsh reflections are abstained from, nor is any thing here set down, but what tends to the justification of the College in point of Right: Even the displaying of Mr. Colmer's personal guilt had been forborn, had it not given the first rise to the present disorders, and if his own obstinacy had not put his Judges upon a necessity of vindicating the Justice of their Sentence.  
But the main stress of this whole Affair centring in the Visitor's Jurisdiction, the Rector and Fellows are heartily sorry, that his Lordship did not meet with a more creditable occasion of asserting his pretended Jurisdiction, then that, which does in the nature of the thing (though not in his Lordship's intentions) tend to the encouragement of Vice and Debauchery, and that in a Society instituted to be a Seminary of Learning and Virtue.  
And they cannot but take notice, because they hope it will make an impression in favour of them upon unprejudiced minds, in what manner the illegality of his Lordship's proceedings is backed by those who abett him; to wit, with force and violence, riots and disturbances even at the performance of God's public Worship, the particulars whereof are not thought fit to be here inserted. A good Cause is always best maintained by proper and legal methods; whereas passion and force are generally signs of a bad cause as well as of ill men.   

The CASE of Exeter-Colledge, in the University of Oxford, Related and Vindicated.  
WIthin the compass of three quarters of a year two Bastard Children were born of young Women then in the Service of Bed-makers belonging to Exeter-Colledge. One Anne Aris appeared to be with Child about Mich. 1688. and towards the latter end of the next Summer, one Anne Sparrow was in the same condition.  
The Rector, and Signior Fellows thought (as well they might) that it highly behoved them for the Reputation of the College to endeavour the wiping off such a double scandal. Which could no otherwise be done then by a discovery who were the true Fathers of the said Bastard-childrens; and if upon Examination, and Proof, it should appear that any Member of the College had been faulty therein, then to proceed against such Member, as the Statutes of the College direct.  
Upon enquiring into the matter there appeared violent presumptions of Mr. Colmer's Gild.  
As First, Anne Sparrow confesttoh er Dame Thomasin Smith (who was Mr. Colmer's Bed-maker) that Mr. Colmer was the Father of her Child.  
Secondly, Thomasin Smith confessed, that after the said Anne Sparrow was disabled from working, Mr. Colmer was at the charge of maintaining her.  
These two particulars, the said Thomasin Smith disclosed upon her Examination before the Rector.  
Thirdly, Ferdinand Smith, Thomasin's husband, being Examined by the Rector, said that the Father of one of the Children was Father of both, but refused to confess who that was, or from whom he had money for keeping Anne Sparrow, because a Gentleman (he said) would be expelled, and he should lose his Friends.  
Fourthly, The other young woman Anne Aris had laid her Child to the said Ferdinand Smith, who Fled into the West, and was furnished with money by Mr. Colmer for his Journey; by whom about three months after he was taken into his Service and brought back to the College.  
Fifthly, Ferdinand Smith gave bond to the Overseers of the Poor to save the Parish harmless, penalty 40. l. One of the Overseers, being Cook to the College, and charged by the Rector for unfaithfulness in his Office in taking bond of a man that was not solvent, replied that he should not have taken it, if he had not been bid to do it by a Gentleman, who promised the Parish should come to no damage: This Gentleman upon farther Examination appeared to be Mr. Colmer, who afterwards did not deny it.  
Sixthly, Presently after Anne Sparrow's delivery, viz. about a week's end, it being noised about that Mr. Colmer was the Father, she was removed and hid by Mr. Colmer, or by some of his friends; which upon his own Examination before the Rector he could not deny.  
Seventhly, The then Vice Chancellor, now Lord Bishop of Bristol, being applied to by the Rector to Examine Ferdinand Smith as a Justice upon the whole matter, in order to the finding out the truth; Ferdinand Smith confessed to him that the Girl had named Mr. Colmer for the Father.  
Eighthly, The Midwife being sent for, gave this Account, that when she pressed Anne Sparrow at the time of her travail to name the true Father, Thomasin Smith her Dame desired that she would not urge her, saying she had told her already; and Thomasin, when afterwards examined by the Rector, confessed that she had hindered the Midwife's urging a confession at that time, because she was loath to have Mr. Colmer disgraced before the company then present.  
These grounds to suspect Mr. Colmer's Gild, the Rector thought sufficient for bringing the Matter to a hearing before the Signior Fellows; And accordingly fixed a day, giving Mr. Colmer notice about a fortnight before, that he might have time to prepare his defence.  
The day being come, which was the 10 th'. of October 1689. The Rector and Senior Fellows met together, Mr. Colmer being present. And the substance of the Evidence of Mr. Colmer's having been guilty of Incontinence, and in particular of his being the Father of Anne Sparrow's Bastard child, as disclosed upon a long hearing of several hours, appeared to be as followeth; viz.  
First, Anne Sparrow had acknowledged that Mr. Colmer was the Father of her Child. That she had so acknowledged, 
Note, Ann. Sparrow could not be then produced in person, because removed out of the way to prevent her disclosing the truth; and that by Mr Colmer's friends,  was confessed by Thomasin Smith her Dame then present, and her Husband Ferdinand had owned the same before the Vice Choncellor; as was then attested by the Rectors Oath.  
Secondly, The Overseer of the Poor then attested, (and has since deposed upon Oath) that Mr. Colmer bid him take the security of Ferdinand Smith, Scrape-trencher of the College for the Child that Anne Sparrow, single woman, than went with, and told him the Parish should not be damnified.  
Thirdly, That Thomasin Smith had acknowledged, that the money for Anne Sparrow's maintenance, whilst she was at Ferdinand Smith's house, and big with Child, was paid by Mr. Colmer.  
Fourthly, That by Ferdinand's saying (as before, and as himself acknowledged upon the hearing that he had said, viz.) that a Gentleman would be expelled, it appeared he had some knowledge who was the Father; nor would name any other then Mr. Colmer, who might be liable to Expulsion for the same, and yet refused then to name him, tho' he was told, that unless he charged some body, what he had said already, joined with what othor proofs had been made, would fasten it upon Mr. Colmer; whom he had all along favoured in the whole affair. (Note, that this Smith finding himself afterwards laughed at for some weak tergiversations and contradictions in what he said at the hearing, has confessed that by the Gentleman liable to be expelled, he meant Mr. Colmer.)  
Fifthly, That Anne Sparrow some time before she was known to be with Child, was heard to say, that she had reason to curse Mr. Colmer, for he had undone her. Of this one of the Fellows gave information; to whom it had been told by Joyce Aris, who heard the words, and she being called in and Examined, did herself confirm it.  
Sixthly, That of the Midwife mentioned before.  
Seventhly, That tho' Mr. Colmer had sufficient time given him to make his defence, and might have cleared himself in a great measure from being guilty in the main charge against him, if Ann Sparrow had been brought in, and would have acquitted him; yet he forbore (as must be presumed out of a conscience of guilt) to bring her forth, as he might easily have done; she having been lately removed out of the way by some of his friends, as himself could not deny. (And, as it has appeared since by her own deposition, she was then but at one John Wakeland's house in Oxford, whether she had been persuaded to remove by Mr. Cleveland and Mr. Maundrel both Fellows of Exeter-Colledge, and intimate friends of Mr. Colmer; who likewise paid for her keeping, whilst she was there.)  
These Evidences appeared to the Rector and Fellows so full and pregnant, that they conceived no rational man could entertain a just doubt of Mr. Colmer's crime; and the Caution that was used by the Rector in making what enquiry he could into the fact, tho' a public scandal to the whole College, before he would bring Mr. Colmer's Reputation in question by a public charge of this nature, is a great argument, how candid the proceedings of the College have been in this affair. Yet were not the Rector and Fellows willing upon the hearing to proceed to a sentence of Expulsion, though upon such violent proofs, as nothing but a positive Testimony upon Oath of the very committing the Act (which in a crime of this nature is very difficult to be had) could be more convincing; without enquiry into Mr. Colmer's former behaviour and course of Life. Which, if it were innocent and free from imputations of such like immoralities, aught to raise a tenderness in receiving such an accusation, and might perhaps entitle him to insist upon stricter proof, than a man who is known to be of a loose life can reasonably be thought to have a Just claim to.  
It was made appear to them by the Attestation of a Scholar, that Anne Aris had confessed to him some rude importunities used to her by Mr. Colmer: Vid. infr. Deposit. Lett. B. And the Rector's Wife declared that one Mary Laurence sometime servant to the said Ferdinand Smith, had declared to her that Mr. Colmer had made some uncivil attempts upon her, when she was making his Bed, insomuch that she was afraid to go into his Room alone, Vid. Dep. Lett. C. Other lascivious offers made by Mr. Colmer to one Alice Gigge were attested at the hearing, by a person who had it from herself. And she has since made Oath of it, Vid. infr. Dep. Lett. D.  
Mr. Colmer's Defence consisted of nothing but confident denials of all that was charged and proved, and the Evidence of the two Fellows above mentioned, who took their voluntary Oaths, that Anne Sparrow had in their hearing cleared Mr. Colmer of having been concerned with her. But as this Testimony of theirs was not then thought considerable enough to counterpoise so many Evidences of her having confessed it to others, backed with so many other circumstances of Mr. Colmer's guilt, as have been mentioned and were fully attested; especially those two Fellows being known to be Mr. Colmer's Intimate Friends, and upon that score suspected to have gained some words of that kind from her in Mr. Colmer's behalf, so it has been made appear since by Anne Sparrow's own Affidavits made before Justices of Peace, that Mr. Cleaveland and Mr. Maundrell, who were the two Fellows that gave this Testimony, had advised her to lay her Child to a Gentleman of Christ-Church, for that if she laid it to Mr. Colmer he would be expelled, and that it was pursuant to their persuasions that she owned before Alderman Fyfield, that another man was though Father. But withal she swore that none had ever persuaded her to lay it to Mr. Colmer, who was the true Father, for that no other man but Mr. Colmer had ever had carnal knowledge of her, Vid. infr. Depos. let. E. & L.  
Upon a full hearing of all the Allegations and Proofs on both sides, the Rector and Fellows were convinced in their Consciences of Mr. Colmer's guilt, and proceeded to a sentence, whereby according to the Statute De causis propter quas Scholar. etc. they pronounced him ipso facto expelled.  
Mr. Colmer rested to appearance satisfied with the Justice of his sentence for some time; and desired of the Rector a licence under his hand in order to his Admission into some other College; and confessed that he had no reason to complain of his Judges, for that himself upon the like Evidence would have found any other person guilty; but he pretended to find fault with the Witnesses, and laid the whole blame upon them. But he continued not long in this submissive mind: A design was laid to contest the matter again, and clear Mr. Colmer's Innocence.  
It has been said that Anne Sparrow was removed shortly after her lying in to John Wakeland's House in Oxford, from thence after some Weeks stay, she was brought back to Ferdinand Smith's (where she was before) and there a Justice of Peace, Alderman Fyfield, came to her, being conducted by the aforesaid Mr. Mandrell who had Christened the Child; and examined her concerning the Bastard-child, that she had had. To him she declared that she had been got with Child by a Gentleman of Christ-Church; and cleared Mr. Colmer. The Rector hearing that Anne Sparrow had retracted what she had formerly acknowledged to so many, went to Alderman Fyfield to inquire into the matter: But could receive from him no other Account than this: viz. That he had Examined her, but had taken no deposition; and at what house it was he knew not; that she had cleared Mr. Colmer, and said she had lain with one of Christ-Church, but knew neither his name nor his Chamber.  
Now this retractation of here's before Alderman Fyfield, as it is the less to be credited, because contrary to what she had frequently declared before, and because she was not upon her Oath for any thing that appears by the Alderman's Certificate, so it is to be considered that at the time when Alderman Fyfield examined her, she was kept private in Oxford by the procurement of Mr. Colmer's Friends, who had paid for maintenance since her great Belly disabled her from working, and consequently may well be supposed to have a great influence and design upon her: And further it must be observed that Alderman Fyfield, though he was a Justice of Peace, did not in taking this Examination act as such; he did not send for the Wench before him, but very officiously waited upon her; and at such a house as he knew not how to find again, he took no Deposition upon Oath, made but a very superficial enquiry after the true Father, took no care to secure the Parish, but being Mr. Colmer's friends, and their Pupils Mercer, was acted apparently by him and his friends to gain an acquittal of Mr. Colmer from Anne Sparrow's mouth, which should have the credit of being attested before a Magistrate; and yet should be ordered in such a manner, as not to be capable of being contradicted.  
The next step taken by Mr. Colmer and his Managers was to convey Anne Sparrow quite away, to prevent her being examined in another manner, than the Alderman had done; whereby the truth with respect to Mr. Colmer might come out, and the indirect carriage of Alderman Fyfield in this matter be made public. She was therefore conveyed by John Wakeland, in whose House she had lodged, to one Green's House at Dorchester seven miles from Oxford; there she made some stay, and discovered the whole matter to Green and his Wife, as appears by their Deposit. Lett. M & Lett. N. From Dorchester the same Wakeland, who had agreed and paid for her Lodging, etc. at Dorchester, conveyed her to Farrington, and from thence to London.  
The day after she came to London, looking out at a Window she spied passing by one of the Fellows of Exeter-Colledge, and calling to him, gave him an account of all that had passed. Which he imparted to the Rector by Letter: And shortly after by the Rector's order went to a Justice of Peace in order to have her Examined, but she was removed, and the Woman of the House refused to tell the Justice whither; but being threatened to be sent to Bridewell, confessed that Anne Sparrow was about Islington, whither she went with the Constable, and brought her before the Justice of Peace, before whom she deposed, That Mr. Colmer was the only man that ever had lain with her, and that he was Father of her Child, that after her delivery she was advised by Mr. Cleaveland and Mr. Mandrel to say that a Gentleman of Christ-church was the Father, which by their persuasion she did to Alderman Fyfield, who was brought to her by Mr. Maundrel: that the reason which they urged to her to lay her Child to another, was because else Mr. Colmer would be expelled: And that no person ever persuaded her to lay her Child to Mr. Colmer.  
She deposed likewise at the same time (as the Justice has since certified to the Rector by Letter) that she had never taken an Oath before a Magistrate before.  
So that after all, the sentence against Mr. Colmer was both just in itself, being pronounced upon a full hearing and sufficient proof; it was acknowledged by himself to be just with respect to his Judges; but he found fault with the Witnesses. And now the Testimony of the Witnesses is made appear to have been true by subsequent proofs; and the whole management of the Affair in keeping Anne Sparrow private at first, and afterwards conveying her away by Mr. Colmer's Friends; and in persuading her to favour Mr. Colmer, and lay the Child to another, is made so clear and undeniable by what has been said, and the following proofs; that thus far at least the Rector and Fellows have acted nothing irregular, but have discharged their duty.  
The Depositions referred to in the precedent Discourse, or confirming the Particulars thereof, are as followeth, viz.  

The Examination of Richard Hedges taken upon Oath be-Sir William Walker, one of their Majesty's Justices of the Peace etc. June 30 th'. 1690.  
THis Deponent having taken his Oath before Sir William Walker Knight, one of their Majesty's Justices of the Peace, of the City of Oxon, saith as followeth, that Mr. James Colmer late Fellow of Exon-Colledge, did bid the said Deponent, Richard Hedges, being Overseer of the poor of St. Mary Magdalen Parish, take the security of Fardinand Smith, Scrape-Trencher of the said College, for the Child which Anne Sparrow single Woman then went with, and the Parish should not be Damnified.  
Concordat cum Originali factâ debita collatione per me. Ben. Cooper Notarum publicum.   

Arm Aris said in the presence of us John Freek, and John Clase that Mr. Colmer desired the said Anne Aris to let him catch her by the Belly, whilst she was rubbing his Room, but she refused it: in Witness whereof we have set our hands  
John Freek. John Clase. 2d. 1690:   

The Information of Mary the wife of Thomas Laurence taken upon Oath by Sir. William Walker Knight, one of their Majesty's Justices of the Peace for the City of Oxford, this second day of July 1690.  
THis Deponent testifieth that about six years since, being servant to Ferdinand Smith, whose wife was Bed maker at Exeter-Colledge, she the said Deponent coming into the Chamber of Mr. Colmer to make his Bed, he the said Mr. Colmer took her violently by both her hands, and threw her upon his Bed, and endeavoured to lie with her biding her lie still, which she refused, and did not yield to him, but went out of the Room, and left one of the Beds unmade, and then she went to the Trencher Room, and told her Dame's Mother what Mr. Colmer had endeavoured to do (as is aforesaid) and declared she would never go again to Mr. Colmer's Room unless some body went with her.  
The Mark of Mary) Laurence. Concordat cum originali facta debita collatione per me Ben. Cooper, Notarum Publicum.   

The Contents of this Deposition are what the Rector's Wife declared when Mr. Colmer's Cause was heard. She having received it from the Woman herself, who gives this confirmation; though the Author of the Account, tells the world it was then disowned by the party who spoke it, and sets it off thus pleasantly, It was said that the Rector 's Wife said that a certain Maid said to her that she had formerly said to another Woman, that Mr. Colmer had been uncivil to her. This may be thought wit by some, but by none fair dealing.  

The Oath of Alice Gigger, etc.  
ALice Gigger at present of London, Spinster, maketh Oath that she this Deponent living at one Mr. Halls a Coffee-house in the City of Oxon was several times tempted by Mr. James Colmer Fellow of Exeter-Colledge in Oxford, to have been naught with him, and at sundry times offering her this Deponent money to become his Whore, and particularly at one time about two years and an half since he took out a handful of Money out of his Pocket, and showed it her, telling her this Deponent that if she would comply with him, she should have what she would of it, or to that effect. And another time he would have had this Deponent gone out Town with him, who asked him where? He told her to the Rose and Crown in Hincksey, about two Miles out of Town: She asked how? He told her on Horseback behind him; and withal said she had a good Excuse to ask leave of her Master and Mistress, being a Holiday, Saint Luke's day; and he then told her that they would take Horse at Mr. Crowders in Holywell Parish, where his Horse then stood, which this Deponent totally declined; He intimating his intention of making her a Whore. Another time he would have had this Deponent have left her Service and gone into the Country, and he would have maintained her as a Gentlewoman, if she would yield to him; which this Deponent refusing, he said again to her, A Plague damn your fools-head. And at another time he said before a Stranger in this Deponents presence, That he would several times have had to do with this Deponent, but she would not consent. And this Deponent further saith, That about a Month since, this Deponent received a Letter from her Brother, who writ to this Deponent (at the Instigation of Mr. Colmer's Lawyer of New College (as her Brother writes to her) that if any of Exeter College came to her, she should not discover any thing, for if she did, she should take care of herself, for Colmer would do her a mischief, besides the College would have her down upon her own charge into the Country, and put her to great trouble, or to that effect.  
Jurat, 27. die Junii Annoque; Dom. 1690. coram me Rog, Meredith.    


Middl. & West. sc.  The Examination of Anne Sparrow taken upon Oath before John Ward, Esquire, one of Their Majesty's Justices of the Peace for the said Country and Liberty.  
THis Deponent being Examined upon Oath, did declare that James Colmer, Fellow of Exeter College in the University of Oxford, was the only man in the world that ever had carnal knowledge of her Body, and that the said James Colmer, and no body else, is the only and true Father of the Bastard child, that she was delivered of about Michaelmas last passed, at the House of Ferdinando Smith, in the Parish of St. Mary Magdalen in the City of Oxford. This Deponent further faith, That some time after she was delivered, Mr. Maundrel and Mr. Cleaveland did advise her to say that a Gentleman of Christ-Church was the Father of her Child, which by their persuasion she did to Alderman Fyfield, who was brought to her by Mr. Maundrel only to take her Examination. That the Reason they urged to persuade this Deponent to lay her Child to one of Christ-Church, was she should not do Mr. Colmer an injury, who would be expelled if she laid the Child to him. And she further deposeth that no person living ever persuaded her to lay her Child, to Mr. Colmer. And further saith not.  
The Mark of An. Sparrow. Jurat. Coram me, Jan. 21. 1689. John Ward.   

The Constable's and Beadle's Certificates.  
THese may Certify whom it may concern, That it was a long time before Mrs. Pearse (who Lodged Anne Sparrow in London, and had carried her about three Miles off) could be persuaded to own where she was, but at last went along with me, and brought Anne Sparrow to London, before Justice Ward, which said Anne Sparrow drank not any thing (that I know of) in the House from whence she came, and walked to London a foot, none of us drinking any thing by the way; neither did Mr. Kingston of Exeter College in Oxon see the said Anne Sparrow all that day, till he saw her in the Room before Justice Ward, all which I am ready to testify upon Oath; as also that the said Anne Sparrow had a fair and just Examination before John Ward, Esq at which I was present all that time with the Beadle, and others.  
Witness my Hand and Seal this 22d. of March 1689/90. And that the said Anne Sparrow freely and of her own accord said most of those things to me, which she after confessed upon Oath.  
Edward Warburton, Constable.  
I Am also ready to testify upon Oath, That the said Anne Sparrow was no way in drink, when she was brought to Justice Ward, before whom she had a just and fair Examination, there being several persons present, and I myself being present all the time, and that Mr. Kingston had not seen the said Anne Sparrow until such time, as I did fetch Mr. Kingston to the Justice, where Anne Sparrow was; as also that Mr. Warburton being sick in bed, did desire that the above written should be drawn for him, and doth own his Hand and Seal.  
Witness my Hand and Seal this Twenty second of this Instant March, 1689.  
William Gunter, Beadle.   

The Examination of Anne Sparrow taken upon Oath before Sir William Walker, Knight, one of their Majesty's Justices of the Peace for the City of Oxon, May 5th. 1690.  
THis Informant saith, That Mr. Colmer Fellow of Exeter College in Oxford, hath had carnal knowledge of her Body once in his Study, and several other times afterwards; and that Alice Wats, Servant to Ferdinando Smith, told her that Mr. Colmer had lain with her also several times: She also saith, That Mr. Cleaveland and Mr. Maundrel Fellows of Exeter College, on the next day after the birth of her Child, desired her to lay her Child to a Gentleman of Christ-Church College; and that they persuaded her to remove to a place provided for her, where she should want nothing: Whereupon she went with John Wakeland and his Wife to their House, where she tarried about three Weeks, in which time Mr. Cleaveland and Mr. Maundrel came thither, and paid the aforesaid John Wakeland for her Keeping; and that John Wakeland carried her from her Master's House on a Horse to Dorchester, to the House of Francis Green, where she tarried about two Months, and from thence to Farrington, where she tarried about a Month, and from thence she went in a Wagon to London, where she was placed by John Wakeland, and she also saith, That no other person had carnal knowledge of her Body besides the aforesaid Mr. Colmer: And before her delivery she told her Dame, That Mr. Colmer was the Father of her Child.  
This is a true Copy of the Examination of Anne Sparrow, taken before Sir William Walker, Knight.  
William Walker.  
Note. Mr. Cleaveland was present when this Examination was taken.   

The Examination of Ursula Green, taken upon Oath, before Sir William Walker Knight, one of their Majesty's Justices of the Peace, for the City of Oxferd. May the 6 th'. 1690.  
THis Informant saith, that Anne Sparrow was brought to her house at the Black boy in Dorchester, by John Wakeland Bargeman of this City, which Wakeland came to her House the day before he brought the said Anne Sparrow, and told this Informant, and her Husband Francis Green, that he would have them take the said Anne, for that a Gentleman had got her with Child, and was willing to have her out of the way, that he might not be disgraced, and that they might put the said Anne in an outward room so as she might not appear much, lest she should be found out; That they should take care of her, and should be well and truly paid, and then made a bargain with them for one month, and paid the money (which was sixteen shillings) as soon as he brought the said Anne Sparrow, who came with him on Horse back before Eight of the Clock in the morning: This Informant saith, that ask the said Anne who was the Father of her Child, she said a Gentleman, and being asked who, she said she must not tell, for fear she should be undone, but being farther pressed earnestly, she said one Mr. Colmer Fellow of Exeter-Colledge was the real Father, and the only man in the world, that ever had any thing to do with her, and that Ferdinand Smith and others, had persuaded, and encouraged her always to say, that a Gentleman of Christ-Church was the Father of it, and that John Wakeland took the said Anne Sparrow from her House on foot, and carried her away, whither he would not tell, And this Informant further saith, that the said Anne Sparrow came to her house (and stayed some time) after the said Sparrow had been at London, and then told her, that Wakeland carried her to Farrington, and càme back with her after she had stayed sometime there (she riding in a Wagon) and that they lay one night at Dorchester at the Crown, and that Anne desired then to call on the said Green, but Wakeland told her, No, They must not know whither she went, for fear they should make Proclamations, and that the said Anne told her, that John Wakeland said he had thirty shillings to carry the said Anne to London, and this Informant saith, that John Wakeland came to her house since the said Anne came from London, and saw the said Anne there, and desired this Informant, to go out of the Room, for he had something to say to Anne Sparrow in private, which this Informant accordingly did, who further saith, that when Wakeland paid her the last money for the keeping the said Anne Sparrow, she asked him who 'twas that paid him the money, and where he had it, he answered of a Gentleman who always brought it to him, but he whold not say he knew him; and this Informant does declare, that the said Anne told her, she seeing Mr. Kingston Fellow of Exeter College pass by a place in London, as she was looking out at a Window, held out her hand and called to the said Mr. Kingston, and this Informant saith further, that the said Mr. Kingston saw Anne Sparrow ' twice at her House on May the 3d. and 5th. but was never alone, or in private with the said Anne Sparrow, but did several times exhort her to speak nothing but the truth, and to do the least wrong to no one, whatsoever might be asked her.  
This is a true Copy of the Examination of Ursula Green, taken before Sir William Walker Knight.  
William Walker.   

The Examination of Francis Green, taken upon Oath before Sir William Walker Knight, one of their Majesty's Justices of the Peace for the City of Oxon, May the 10 th'. 1690.  
THis Informant saith that one John Wakeland of Oxon Bargeman came to his House at the Black boy at Dorchester, and desired him to keep a Wench, who had a By-blow by a Gentleman who was able to maintain her, and had money enough, and that if four shillings a Week would not do, he should have five, and bargained at last for sixteen shillings the Month, which he paid before hand, as soon as she was brought to his House, and that John Wakeland did desire to have her kept private, that she might not be seen, that the said John Wakeland after Anne Sparrow (which was the said Woman) came from London, and it was known at Oxon, that she was at the said Green's House, came over to him and earnestly desired the said Green, not to bring the said Sparrow over to Oxford, for that he should be ruined and undone if he did, and that if he gave the Wench any diet, he would pay for it: This Informant further saith, that the abovenamed Anne Sparrow, while at his House the first time, said frequently, that one Mr. Colmer was the Father of her Child, and the only man that had to do with her, and that the said Sparrow also said, that Mr. Maundrel and Mr. Cleaveland overperswaded her to lay it to a Gentleman of Christ-Church, telling her that she should be maintained and well provided for, and that she should want for nothing, and this Informant further saith, that he came to Exeter-Colledge to Goody Smith, to ask of her something for Sparrow, and that she bid him make no noise, and carried him into a Room, desiring him to say nothing to any Body, and that what he did for her, he should be sure to be paid for.  
This is a true Copy of the Examination of Francis Green, taken before Sir William Walker Knight.  
William Walker.   

The Deposition of Elizabeth Roberts Widow, taken before Sir William Walker Knight, one of their Majesty's Justices of the Peace for the City of Oxford, upon Oath, October 9 1690.  
THis Deponent saith that she did never use any means for persuading Anne Sparrow to lay her Child to Mr. Colmer or any other man; and she farther saith, that when she was sent for by the Lord Bishop of Exeter at the time of his late Visitation in Exeter-Colledge, there was nothing objected against her concerning Anne Sparrow, nor any question put about her. But that this Deponent was then asked whether she knew any harm (or words to that effect) of the Rectors house, to which this Deponent answered that she did not, and was thereupon dismissed. And this Deponent saith further, that when Anne Sparrow was in Oxford, she asked her the said Anne Sparrow, if ever she had persuaded her to lay her Child to Mr. Colmer, to which she answered that she never did, nor did she ever say so.  
The Mark of Elizabeth Roberts.   

The next part of the History of this Affair consists of Mr. Colmer's Appeal to the Bishop of Exeter, and what ensued thereupon.  
Mr. Colmer having now by the close management of his Friends, Mr. Cleaveland and Mr. Maundrel got a verbal acquittal of his guilt from Anne Sparrow before a Magistrate, and secured her, as he presumed, from telling School-tales, by causing her to be conveyed far enough off, thought his Reputation would stand fair, notwithstanding what had been proved at the hearing. The next thing was to get his Sentence of Expulsion taken off; In order to which he gets an Appeal drawn up, and carries it to the Lord Bishop of Exeter, visitor of the College, then at London. The Bishop received the Appeal; and granted two Instruments, the one an Inhibition, by which all farther proceedings against Mr. Colmer are forbid, (but the ultimate Act, which the College could do, was already past) The other an Order requiring the Rector and Fellows to give an account of their proceedings sub poenâ juris & contemptûs, in order to a new determination. And together with these two Instruments came his Lordship's Letter to the Rector, mentioning the two Instruments, that were sent to be served upon himself and the Senior-Fellows, and that his Lordship expected to be attended, and particularly that Mr. Cleaveland and Mr. Maundrel should be of them that were to come.  
The Rector and Fellows had no notice of this till the two Instruments were served upon them, whereby they were deprived of having opportunity to represent the matter so to his Lordship, as would, in all likelihood, have prevented his Lordship's interposing in this Affair. It was resolved therefore that an answer should be sent to his Lordship with all due Reverence, with a true State of the case, both as it related to Mr. Colmer and themselves. This the Rector did in a Letter, which was presented to his Lordship by three of the Fellows. It was said therein that Mr. Colmer had by his Appealing added a new crime to his former, and a crime, for which by the same Statute he had incurred the same penalty, and that he had so far justified the persons concerned in his conviction, as to tell the Rector in the presence of Witnesses, that upon the Evidence disclosed against himself, he himself would have judged any other person guilty: The Letter proceeded, My Lord, We willingly acknowledge your Lordship our Visitor and Patron, and shall upon all occasions pay your Lordship all possible Reverence and all due obedience, and what is due our Statutes do express, which that your Lordship at this distance from your own Copy may infallibly discover, I have transcribed the whole Statute.  
And having then represented that the Statutes do not give his Lordship any jurisdiction to receive and determine an Appeal; then these words follow; viz.  
The answers therefore which I make to your Lordships two Instruments, can be no other than these; 1. Whereas your Lordship inhibiteth us from proceeding any farther in the cause, the Statute is already executed: Mr. Colmer is ipso facto expelled, and we need do no more, and we could do no less. 2. Whereas your Lordship requireth us to send an extract of proceedings; this we cannot do; for that we proceeded in the same form that the Statute prescribes in case the Rector be expelled, summanè, de plano, extrà strepitum Judicialem. He added how much it was a trouble to him, to do or say any thing, that might displease a person to whom he owed so much honour and reverence, but comforted himself with the hopes that his Lordship would ere long justify him in the performance of his duty.  
There is reason to believe that this decent Letter of the Rector, and the Reasons therein contained had some influence upon his Lordship, for that he forbore any farther proceedings for some months: But at last Dr. Masters is Commissionated to receive and determine Mr. Colmer's appeal in a formal visitation.  
On the 20 th'. day of March 1688/9 being Thursday, the Doctor came to the Rector's lodgings, and told him he had a Commission from the Bishop of Exeter, which he would execute on Saturday following, and then a farther day would be appointed for proceeding. And when he went away from the house, he caused to be hung up at the Chapel door a Citation, requiring the Rector and the Senior-Fellows by name, to appear on Saturday in the Chapel, and a time in the forenoon was assigned.  
The Rector and Senior Fellows attended at the time and place, where the Rector acknowledged the Obedience due to the Visitor both in person, and by Deputy, submitted to his Authority, and spoke otherwise respectively of the Bishop, and suitably to the occasion.  
The Commissioner then was for adjourning till Wednesday, but being informed that the Statute of Visitation allowed but three days at most, and those proximé sequentes, he adjourned to the Afternoon; where the Commissary took care to have the Doors open contrary to the intent of the Statutes. When he was proceeding to Mr. Colmer's case the Rector and Major part of the seven Seniors tendered him a Protestation against his proceeding therein. Which he accepted, and ordered to be entered: and promised, if they thought fit to make any additions, that they should be inserted. Some debates than arose and the Rector prayed another day because he had sent for two other Signior Fellows, 
v. These two Protestations Printed at the end of the Book.  who were then absent: upon which there was an Adjournment to Tuesday. At which meeting the Rector and five of the seven Seniors tendered another Protestation, which included the former, with an addition in which they complained of, and protested against making the Visitation so public by keeping open the Door, and admitting a promiscuous crowd of people to be present. But notwithstanding both Protestations were admitted, the Commissary proceeded; gave sentence for Mr. Colmer to be restored, awarded him twenty Marks for Costs, and wrote his name in the Book with his own hand. At the Commissary's going off, the Rector tendered him the Visitation-fee of twenty shillings, which the Statutes allow, but he refused it.  
Though the Rector and Fellows did not acknowledge Mr. Colmer to be a Rightful Fellow of the College, having been legally expelled, and no otherwise restored then as aforesaid, yet after the Visitation was over, they did not presently strike his name out of the Book, nor was he disturbed in his possession. But the Rector having understood that he had been guilty of another Crime of the same kind with the former, resolved to bring that too under Examination, 
13th. Febr. An. Regni Secundo.  and the rather because of his Majesty's late Order for the punishment of Vice and Debauchery.  
This second accusation, though for a fact precedent to the former, was for incontinence with one Anne Aris, who had been a Bed-maker's Daughter belonging to the College: She had formerly laid her Child to Ferdinand Smith, but had confessed privately to her Mother Elizabeth Buckland, and in the hearing of her Sister Joyce Aris, that Mr. Colmer had lain with her as well as Smith; they two told it to Francis Buckland the Father-in-law. But the Mother having a Dependence upon the College, took care not to have it go out of the Family, for fear of losing her Employment; and when her Daughter's time drew near, strictly charged her, and so did her Sister, to be sure she said nothing of Mr. Colmer, when under the Midwife's hands: She took their counsel, and named Smith only. Her Mother was afterward troubled that she had prevented her Daughter from telling the truth, and especially when she saw what disturbance had been occasioned in the College through Mr. Colmer's means, which might have been prevented, if she had let the truth come out at first; she therefore took occasion to discharge her mind, and confessed the whole matter. Upon which Ann Aris was Examined before a Justice of Peace, and declared as in her Deposition. Her Mother and Sister likewise deposed that she had told them two Months before her lying in, according to the contents of her Oath, and that they had persuaded her as aforesaid.  
The Rector having these Proofs, Convened the Seven Signior Fellows, and summoned Mr. Colmer, who appeared. At the beginning of the meeting a Notary was present; and lest a Precedent should remain of any allowed to be a Fellow, who had been restored, as Mr. Colmer, upon an Appeal, the Rector declared he did not look upon Mr. Colmer as a Rightful, but as a pretended Fellow, and that he proceeded against him as such. The matter being then opened, Mr. Colmer insisted to have the Sentence of Dr. Master's owned and submitted to, and the Money paid that was awarded him for Costs; otherwise he refused to answer, and after some Discourse withdrew. But the Rector proceeded, and afrer the Depositions, he was by the judgement of the Rector and the Signior Fellows again convicted; and his Name struck out of the Book.  
The Depositions upon which Mr. Colmer was the second time convicted of Incontinence, and expelled the College, are as follow.   

The Examination of Ann Aris taken the 11 th'. day of January 1689, before Sir William Walker, Knight, one of Their Majesty's Justices of the Peace for the City of Oxford.  

Exeter-Colledge.  THis Examinant saith upon her Oath, That Ferdinando Smith had two times the carnal knowledge of her Body, in a little Room in the College, called the Trencher-house, and once in Mr. Crabb's Chamber, who is one of the Fellows.  
And this Examinant further saith, That since one Mr. Colmer, one of the Fellows of Exeter College, had the carnal knowledge of her Body in his own Chamber in the said College at two several times.  
The said Ann Aris also saith, That she was brought to Bed on New-year's day at Twelve of the Clock in the Night, in the year 1688, in her Mother's house, one Goodwife Buckland, in the Parish of St. Michael, in the City of Oxford.  
This is a true Copy of the Examination of Ann Aris, taken before Sir William Walker, Knight, one of Their Majesty's Justices of the said City of Oxford.  
William Walker.   

The Certificate of Francis Buckland of the City of Oxford given the second day of July, 1690.  
I Francis Buckland do certify whom it may concern, That my Wife Elizabeth Buckland, and Daugheer-in law Joyce Aris, did acquaint me sometime before Ann Aris was brought to Bed, that Mr. Colmer, Fellow of Exeter College, and Ferdinando Smith, Scrape-Trencher of the same College, had lain with her, and my Wife said she designed strictly to forbid her mentioning Mr. Colmer at her Labour, for fear she should be turned out of the College, and so lose her place of Bed-maker.  
Francis Buckland.   

The Deposition of Francis Buckland of the City of Oxford, taken before Sir William Walker, Knight, one of Their Majesty's Justices of the Peace for the City of Oxford, the 15 th'. of Oxford, 1690.  
THis Deponent upon the Oath that he hath taken doth declare, That the Contents of the foregoing Certificates, given by him the 2d. day of July last, were and are true.  
Francis Buckland.   

The Examination of Elizabeth Buckland, taken upon Oath, March 26. 1690. before Sir William Walker, Knight.  
THis Deponent saith, That her Daughter Anne Aris about two Months before she was delivered of her Child, told her and her Daughter Joyce, that Ferdinando Smith and Mr. Colmer Fellow of Exeter College had lain with her: And this Deponent further saith, that the day before, and the same day her Daughter was delivered of her Child, she persuaded her said Daughter Ann Aris not to name Mr. Colmer, because she was unwilling to lose her Employment in the College.  
William Walker.   

The Examination of Joyce Aris the Daughter of the aforesaid Elizabeth Buckland, taken upon Oath at the same time before Sir William Walker, Knight.  
THis Deponent being by at the same time when her Mother examined her Daughter, the aforesaid Ann Aris, deposeth that she heard her Sister say, That Ferdinando Smith and Mr. Colmer had lain with her, and also the said Joyce further deposeth, That she and her Mother both did persuade her Sister, the said Ann Aris, not to name Mr. Colmer, for fear her Mother should lose her Employ of Bed-making in Exeter College.  
William Walker.   

Upon this Mr. Colmer takes the same course that he had done before and Appeals to the Bishop: Goes to Exeter with it, and threatens at his departure that the College should know the Effects of his Journey: The Appeal being tendered, his Lordship receives it, and resolves upon a New Visitation in his own person; and in order to it sends his Citation to the College dated May 16. 1690. giving notice of his intention to Visit the 16 of the next Month: When his Lordship came to Oxford, the Rector and three of the Seniors waited upon him at his Lodgings in Christ-Church, presented him with the Respects of the College, but desired that he would not visit; informing him that they had provided a Protestation under their Common Seal against it; because if they submitted to it (he having Visited so lately by his Commissary, and being allowed by the Statutes to Visit but once in Five years) they should betray the Privileges of their College, which by Oath they were bound to defend.  
When his Lordship came to the College, the Rector and Majority of the Fellows attended him, and tendered him a Protestation with all imaginable Respect, and appointed a Public Notary to read it. But his Lordship plucked it out of the Notary's hand, and trod it under foot: then the Rector and Fellows withdrew. Afterwards their Names were called over; and Mr. Colmer amongst the rest. His Lordship then made some Reflections upon most of the Seniors, and without adjourning to another time or place, went out of the College.  
After this his Lordship Petitioned Their Majesties in Council; and an Order of Council being sent down to the Rector and Fellows to give in their Answer in Writing, they did so; and a day being appointed to hear the matter his Lordship's Petition was dismissed.  
Not discouraged with his ill success in this attempt, he comes again to Visit sooner than he had declared he would; and the occasion was this; viz. The Statutes of the College require upon pain of expulsion, that every Fellow that shall be present at any Election, shall name some certain person to supply the Vacancy: And because several who complied with the Visitor, had refused in the late Election, to name another person to succeed in Mr. Colmer's place, then vacant by his Expulsion, though the Bishop had moved in Council, to have an Inhibition to stay the Election, and could not prevail; the Rector told them that as many as had so refused, had incurred the penalty of Expulsion, but not being obliged to inflict it, he would only Register them as Obnoxious, without proceeding any farther, unless by their future ill carriage, they should deserve it. The clause of the Stat. the Electione Rectoris, etc. which was the ground of what the Rector said and did, runs thus; viz. In quam etiam paenam (sc. perpetuae amotionis a Collegio) omnes & singulos Scholar's in nominationibus electionibus, admissionibus, aliisve negotiis utilitatem Collegii concernentibus, etc. ac ritè & legitimè secundum consuetudinem vocatos & requisitos, ac deinde personalitèr interesse aut effectualiter nominatim & absolute nominare & eligere renuentes incurrere volumus ipso facto.  
They being alarmed at this, represent the matter so to the Bishop, that to secure them, he resolves upon a present Visitation. And sends a Citation in order to it. They that thought themselves concerned to oppose it, resolve to shut the College-gates, but before the hour appointed for the Visitation was come, three Senior-Fellows were sent to his Lordship with a Petitionary-Letter, humbly praying him not to come. These not being admitted to speak with him, sent in the substance of their message by a Servant, by whom they received this Answer, that the Bishop expected to meet with all possible opposition, but was resolved to come. And shortly after came, the Gates being violently broken open to make way for him, he went to the Hall, where there was a great crowd of people: Yet the Rector and Fellows got in with much a do as their names were reading, and as they had done before, tendered their Protestation; which one of the Senior-Fellows began to read, but was not suffered to go on: Whereupon the Rector delivered it in at the Table, and he and his party withdrew. The Fellows, who sided with the Rector, being the Major part, not answering to their names, were suspended ab Officio & beneficio. Amongst them were five of the seven Seniors, and all the Officers of the College Then the Visitor restored Mr. Colmer, who consequently became one of the Senior-Fellows, which if it had not been done, he must have been forced to take in an under Graduate to make up the number of seven.  
Here it is to be observed that the Fellows, who submitted, though then sworn to present (amongst other things) any that was but suspected of in continency, yet did not present Mr. Colmer, though it was notoriously known, that he had been twice expelled for that crime, upon the Grounds and Evidence abovementioned.  
His Lordship having cleared his way by removing those Fellows, whom the Statutes make the proper Judges in the Rector's case, proceeds with his new party to deprive the Rector; 
(vide, The Sentence of Deprivation.  and accordingly did so: and yet of them two dissented, and all the rest had been Registered as Obnoxious to Expulsion. Then Dr. H's place was declared void by Session. And Mr. Vivian put out, as having been Elected into Mr. Colmer's place, which his Lordship judged not vacant, Mr. Kingston for reading Prayers after his Suspension was the very next day Excommunicated without the least admonition; And the Rector admonished to leave his lodgings, within seven days sub paenâ Excommunicationis Majoris; i. e. A conditional sentence of the greater Excommunication is denounced against him, if he does not and the time being expired and he not obeying, is was actually executed in the Chapel accordingly. The Rector kept his lodgings notwithstanding, being advised by his Council, that the Visitor had not the power of an Ordinary within the College; and that if he had, he could not make use of it in that case, viz. to enforce obedience to what he did as Visitor. That if his Deprivation were legal, he must be turned out by due course of Law; and not frighted from his freehold by the thunder of Excommunication. That for a Bishop to give sentence against a man in a matter of Temporal right, and to Excommunicate him for not submitting to it, was never practised Legally, during the Pope's Usurpation here, nor perhaps ever attempted since the Abrogation of his pretended Supremacy.  
Upon these severe and unstatutable proceedings the Rector and Fellows, (according to the precedent the Bishop had given them in his one case) humbly represented their grievances to her Majesty in Council, whereupon the Honourable Board caused an Order to be sent to him, to give his answer in writing, which was served accordingly. But his Lordship has not thought fit to appear and answer as yet.  
The very same day in which this Order of Council came out, Seven or Eight of the Senior-Fellows (all the rest with the Officers to the number of Eleven being suspended) broke open the Chapel door contrary to the Statutes, and proceeded to the Election of a new Rector.  
§. 1. THis being a true History of the whole Affair, how far these proceedings of the Bishop are justifiable, and whether the Rector and Fellows have at all been irregular, or have acted contrary to the Statutes of the College, their own Oaths and Duty, is next to be considered.  
As for Mr. Colmer's Expulsion, that he was really guilty of the crimes laid to his charge, and that the Rector and Fellows had upon the hearing sufficient grounds to believe it, cannot but seem very evident to unprejudiced persons by the allegations and depositions abovementioned. And when there is sufficient cause for inflicting a sentence, it is very weak to ascribe it to a distaste conceived against the person, the secret springs whereof are not fit to be published. 
Pag. 5.   
What the Author means by secret Springs of intimacy the Rector understands not: But the causes of his distaste against him since are notorious, and must be made more so, that the proceedings against him abovementioned, may appear to have been no contrivance of passion or prejudice, 
Pag. 5.  as the Author of the Account would suggest where he tells us that upon Mr. Colmer's opposing Sir Kingston's Election the Rector openly declared, that he would upon that account compass his Expulsion. For as no such thing was ever said by the Rector, nor any thing to that effect; the allegation being utterly false and a malicious invention of a person, who throughout this whole proceedure has been forced to make lies his refuge; so the contrary does in some measure appear by the Rector's consenting, after this Affair of Sir Kingston's, to Mr. Colmer's proceeding Master of Art, when it was in his power by the Statutes to deny him that degree two years longer. vid. Stat. de temp. Assum. grad.  
In order to this (viz. his Expulsion) some months after he charges him privately with incontinence and endeavours to frighten him into a Resignation of his Fellowship. 
Pag. 5.  That the Rector had good cause to believe him guilty of incontinence, does sufficiently appear by the preceding Narrative; and if upon information of his guilt in that kind he privately admonished him to quit the College, it was an Act of friendship and charity to persuade him, if he were conscious of his guilt, rather to resign voluntarily, than to expose his Reputation by being publicly accused; And in the Stat. de causis propter quas Rector priv. etc. it is appointed, that if the Sub Rector, and five of the Seniors understand him to be guilty of an offence, meriting deprivation, they shall persuade him ad voluntariè cedendum Officio.  
I pass by the Relation that the Author gives, pages 6 and 7 of Mr. Colmer's conviction before the Rector and Senior Fellows, and shall not take any notice of some scurrilous reflections, and the several false allegations that I find there. For answer to them I refer to the former Narrative, which has been drawn with all the fairness and impartiality imaginable. I shall only take notice of what he says Pag. 7. that on Mr. Colmer's side two of the Fellows attested upon Oath, that the party which was with Child, not only acquitted Mr. Colmer before them, but owned that she had been dealt with to accuse him. This the Author calls a plain and express Evidence. This Evidence, such as it was, was given by Mr. Colmer's friends, which might justly render it then suspected, and by persons who managed the whole Affair on Mr. Colmer's behalf; But as it stood then before the Rector and Fellows upon the hearing, it amounted to no more than this; viz. the woman herself acquitted Mr. Colmer in the hearing of some of his friends, and owned that she had been dealt with to accuse him. And what then? Because she had said such words to some of Mr. Colmer's friends in private, when she was removed out of the way by his means, and maintained at his charge; shall this be thought sufficient to counterpoise what she had confessed to her Dame long before? the truth of which Confession appeared by so many concomitant proofs, as that of Mr. Colmer's putting the Overseer of the Parish upon taking Ferdinand Smith's security, and promising the Parish should not be damnified; that of Mr. Colmer's maintaining her when she was big with Child? that of Ferdinand Smith's refusing to name who was the Father, because a Gentleman would be expelled; which by all circumstances appeared to be Mr. Colmer, and not so much as denying that it was he? that of the Midwife's declaring that when Anne Sparrow was in Labour, her Dame Thomasin Smith desired her not to urge her to name the Father; because she had named him to her; who was no other than Mr. Colmer? with divers other Proofs and Circumstances aforementioned; of which it is far from being the least, that Mr. Colmer did not produce Anne Sparrow at the hearing to clear his innocence, which he had time enough to have done, and would unquestionably have done it, if he had not been guilty? Not to mention over again the character of his Life and conversation, which strengthened the evidence that was brought against him.  
From this Sentence Mr. Colmer appealed to the Visitor. The legality of which Appeal is now to be enquired into; I shall endeavour, 1. To prove that no Appeal lies from a Sentence of Expulsion pronounced as aforesaid, and then shall give an Answer to what is urged by the Author of the Account, etc. to prove that Mr. Colmer might lawfully appeal.  
First, Let us consider what the Rector is sworn to for the good Government of the College, Omnia & singula statuta decreta ordinationes & consuetudines ejusdem Collegii firmiter observabo, & a scholaribus singulis, quantum in me fuerit, etc. observari faciam, etc. Quodque quanttum in me fuerit, & in conscientiâ meâ & Judicio putabo, correctiones, punitiones & reformationes, debitas, rationales atque justas de quibuscunque criminibus delictis & excessibus scholarium, etc. pro qualitate delicti, ubi poenae & punitiones non exprimuntur, expressasque juxta formam & effectum statutorum & decretorum dicti Collegii indifferenter & diligenter faciam & execrebo, seu per alios vel alium fieri & exerceri faciam & procurabo; 
This was a pious and charitable disposition in the Founder, to leave a Discretionary power in the Rector of not proceeding to the extremity of the Statutes in case he should see great hopes of amendment, which lenity how far Mr. Colmer was entitled to, needs not be repeated.  nisi forsitan aliquando lenitatis, comitatis, charitatis, fraternitatis, misericordiae vel clementiae causâ alicui, in quo magna vitae emendandae spes videatur, favero.  
Now by the Statute de causis propter quas scholares privari debeant, etc. it is provided, Quod si quis scholarium vel Electorum, adulterii, incontinentiae, haeresis pervicacis, homicidii voluntarii, perjurii manifesti, crebrae ebrietatis, alteriusve publicae turpitudinis, coram Rectore, sub Rectore, Decano, & quinque aliis scholaribus maximè senioribus vel majore parte eorundem, cum dicti Rectoris Assensu legirimè convictus fuerit, ipsum perpetuò exclusum & privatum a dicto Collegio, nullâ aliâ monitione premissâ, virtute praesentis Statuti decernimus.  
And by the Statute de Admissione eorum qui electi sunt in perpetuos Scholar's, etc. Part of their Oath is in these words: Viz. Item si contingat me posthac per Rectorem, aut in hujusmodi habentes interesse corrigi & puniri aut a dicti Collegii sustentatione Ejici & expelli, excludi, privari vel a moveri propter mea forsan demerita, ipsum Rectorem, seu aliàs personas, seu eorum aliquam, occasione expulsionis, vel correctionis hujusmodi, nunquam persequar, molestabo vel inquietabo per me, alium vel alios, seu ab aliis persequi, molestari seu inquietari eâ de causâ, quantum in me fuerit permittam, sed purè, sponte, simpliciter & absolutè omni actioni contra Rectorem, aut alios dicti Collegii Scholar's, quomodolibet appellationi & querelae in eâ parte faciendis ac quarumcunque litterarum impetrationi, precibus Principum, Prelatorum, Procerum, Magnatum, & aliorum quorumcunque, quibus possem ad jus titulum & possessionem vendicandam reconciliari, ac quibuslibet juris vel facti remediis, per quae me petere possem in integrum restitui, quantumcunque aliàs mihi probitatis & vitae merita suffragentur, in vim pacti renuncio.  
That the Statutes of a College are the local Laws of the Society, and binding to all Members thereof, as such, cannot be denied; and that the Power and Authority of all such as have any share in the Government of such a Society, must be warranted by those local Laws, is so evident that there needs nothing to be alleged in proof of it; and that if any person who by the Statutes has authority within the College, accroaches to himself a Jurisdiction not only not warranted by the Statutes, but directly contrary to them, he invades the Rights and Privileges of a College over which he usurps such pretended Jurisdiction, and both may and must be opposed therein by such of the College, who have any regard to the solemn Oath they have taken, to observe faithfully, themselves, and as far as in them lies to cause to be observed by others, Omnia & singula Statuta, decreta & consuetudines Collegii. vid. The Fellows Oath in sine.  
Now that one Statute of the College provides there shall be no Appeal at all from a Sentence of Expulsion pronounced by the Rector, etc. for Incontinency appears by the last mentioned Statute the Admissione eorum, etc. and the Oath thereby prescribed, as plain as words can make a thing. The words are universal and comprehensive, and such as will admit of no exception; nunquam persequar, molestabo nec inquietale, per me vel per alios. How does this consist with carrying a complaint against the Rector and Senior Follows, and getting them cited and arraigned as Criminals, and fined for their Sentence? How does a renouncing Quomodolibet appellationi consist with appealing to the Bishop of Exeter, unless an Appeal to him as Visitor had been excepted out of the Oath? May a Fellow that's expelled as aforesaid, and has sworn not to procure quascunque litteras Principum, Prelatorum, etc. procure Letters and Instruments from the Bishop of Exeter notwithstanding? Are not the words, quibuslibet Juris & facti remediis, as full and comprehensive as the wit of man could invent to impose an acquiescence in the Sentence, without having recourse to a superior Judge to obtain a rehearing? Is it not a Reflection on the Founder's understanding to suppose that he would make use of so many general and emphatical phrases to exclude seeking relief against a Sentence pronounced as aforesaid, and not add a word to except an Appeal to the Visitor, if at the same time it was not his intention to exclude such Appeals?  
Now this being the plain and obvious sense of the words to exclude an Appeal to the Visitor, as well as to any foreign Jurisdiction whatsoever; nay the words importing it so violently that without adding an imaginary Exception, or supposing the Founder not able to express his mind in proper terms, they cannot be otherwise understood; 
V. Stat. de Electione Rectoris & ejus Jur. Stat. de qualitate eligendorum Scholarium, & de Jur. & Stat. Guil. Petrei.  the College is bound to take them so, and to observe them accordingly, and are bound by Oath under pain of Deprivation so to do; viz. Secundum planum, litteralem & Grammaticalem sensum. Nor can the Visitor affix any Interpretation of his own to them, unless requested by the Rector and the major part of the Scholars.  
And that it was his intention and the design of enjoining this Oath, to exclude the Visitor's Jurisdiction as well as that of any other person, or Court, as far as it was possible for him to do, will appear farther by taking notice what provision is made in other Statutes for the final ending of Controversies arising within the College. By the Stat. de causis propter quas Scholar's, &c. it is appointed that in case differences arise betwixt the Scholars or any other residing within the College, and that the parties at variance do not agree within a day, nor that the Rector, or in his absence the Sub-Rector, and three of the maximè Seniores determine it within two days, than the Rector together with the Sub Rector, the Dean, and five Seniors, shall within three days next after Summariè & de plano eam (discordiam, etc.) examinare, etc. Et quicquid Rector cum predictis, etc. duxerit ordinandum, executioni absque contradictione cujuscunque demandetur. Nec liceat alicui de dicto Collegio, cujuscunque statûs aut gradûs extiterit, occasione rixae, jurgii aut dissensionis intra dictum Collegium, aut extrà inter eosdem ortae vel motae, prosecutionem facere, aut litem aliquam movere, vel aliquem impetere, aut in Judicium trahere coram aliquo Judice Extrinseco Ecclesiastico vel seculari. But it may be the Visitor's power may be let in notwithstanding these words, for he will pretend to be no Judex Extrinsecus. No, it appears by what follows that every person whatsoever, who is neither Rector, Sub-Rector, Dean, nor one of the Signior Fellows is a Judex extrinsecus, within the meaning of this Statute, Sed volumus omnino, quod hujusmodi jurgia, irae, rixae, discordiae, & dissensiones, etc. per personas praedictas, etc. terminentur & finiantur.  
In like manner differences arising betwixt the Rector and the Scholars, if not determined within twenty days by the Sub-Rector, the Dean, and three of the Maximè Seniores, are to be determined by the Chancellor of the University, or the Vicechancellor, or his Commissary, to whose determination the Rector is to stand, Et eidem sine contradictione parere. Stat. de Jur. Rectoris.  
If the Rector be Statutably expelled, he is bound by his Oath, in like manner, as the Fellows are, not to seek any remedy by Appeal or otherwise; Vid. Stat. de Elect. & Juram. Rector. Nor is it possible for him to appeal to the Visitor, for that by the Stat. Propter quas causas Rector, etc. the Bishop of Exeter must be a party to his amotion. And it may seem hard and unreasonable, that the Founder should have utterly cut off the Rector from appealing, and yet leave a door open for every Fellow in the College to have the benefit of an Appeal.  
Besides these proofs that Appeals are excluded, which are grounded upon the words of the Statutes themselves, we have a subsequent proof of what we assert, which though it be a negative one, yet in this case is as forcible as any affirmative proof whatsoever; and that is, that till this late Appeal in Mr. Colmer's case, there never was any Appeal to the Visitor from the sentence of the Rector and Fellows. Subsequent practice is always held to be the truest Expositor of the meaning of a Law; they that lived nearest to the time when it was made, are reasonably supposed to have understood the intention of the Lawgiver best.  
Littleton argues, That no action can be brought upon the Stat. of Merton, 
1st. Inst. fol. 81. b.  because it was never seen or heard that any such action had been brought: And if any action might have been brought, it shall be intended, that at one time or other it would have been put in ure. Upon which Lord Cook says, 
Littl. Sect. 108.  Though an Act of Parliament cannot by non-user be antiquated or lose his force, yet non-user may expound or declare how the Act is to be understood. So we find in Dyer 376. a. that a Writ of Error lieth not of a Judgement given in the Cinque-ports, Pro eo quod nullum tale breve in Registro, nec in aliquibus Praesidentibus Curiarum inveniri potuerat. Since therefore no Precedent of such an Appeal as is now contended for, can be shown, it must be understood to have been the common construction upon the Statutes ever since they were made, that no such Appeals should be commenced.  
I shall add one Observation more grounded upon the Probationer's Oath, which with respect to the matter in hand differs very little in words, and I suppose not at all in sense from this of the Fellows. There are these words in it, Omni actioni seculari, canonicae & civili, appellationique & querelae in eâ parte faciendae, etc. Et quibus libet Juris & facti remediis, etc. in vim pacti renuncio expressè in praesenti, & renunciabo in Scriptis, si exactus fuero in meâ expulsione. Although this promise to renounce in writing, if required, be not inserted into the Fellows Oath, yet I presume it will not be denied but a renunciation by a promissory Oath in vim pacti, is and was designed by the Founder to be a renunciation, so far forth as a man can renounce by Oath, of all the remedies that such a renunciation in scriptis would have precluded him from. And then if Mr. Colmer could not have had his Appeal, in case he had renounced in scriptis; no more could he prosecute it now, without breaking his Oath.  
Thus far from the Letter of the Statute, taken in that plain Grammatical sense in which they direct themselves to be understood, from the design of the Founder collected from some Observations upon other Statutes, and from subsequent usage, it has been shown that Appeals to the Visitor are excluded in the case in question.  
The reason and policy of his confining the Government of the College, and the determining of all Controversies that should arise within the same, to the Jurisdiction of the Rector, Sub-Rector, the Dean, and the Signior Fellows, excepting where the Power of the Visitor, or of the Chancellor, Vicechancellor, etc. is expressly let in, may be reasonably supposed to have been for the peace and quiet of the House: Which being a Society of persons bred up to study, and professing Divinity, aught in both respects to have their Government managed with as little noise and clamour, and as free from disturbances, as the nature of the thing will permit. It was therefore made part of the Probationer's Oath, Quod tranquillitatem, pacem, concordiam, etc. dicti Collegii & Scholarium unitatem, quantum in me fuerit & ad me pertinuerit, viis & modis quibus potero, observabo. And therefore it was, that differences arising within the College, are to be determined by the persons authorized by the Statutes to take cognizance of them, Summariè & de plano & sine strepitu Judiciali. But what a disturbance would it be to such a Society of men, devoted to their Studies, to be subjected upon the complaint of every vexatious person, to the noise and clutter of a Court of Appeals? Appeals may he brought from any other Censures, though never so small, as well as from a Sentence of Expulsion; and if such a door be left open, what encouragement it might give to feuds and dissensions, is obvious enough. Persons really criminal, and duly censured, might however by friends and interest sometimes prevail so as to give great trouble to the Society, and procure a reversal of their most legal and just Acts. And in all likelihood the Members of the Society will be the more careful to avoid the committing of such crimes as are punishable by the Statutes, when they know before hand that they can have no redress elsewhere, if censured at home. And those of the Society must needs be discouraged from doing their duty, and keeping a strict Discipline, if they find themselves in danger to be called to an account for every Act of Jurisdiction that they exert, and punished for it themselves.  
But notwithstanding all this the Author of the Account will have it that Mr. Colmer might lawfully Appeal, and the Bishop of Exeter receive and proceed thereupon as he has done.  
The next thing therefore to be done, is to examine what is alleged to justify a thing that appears so directly contrary to the words of the Statutes, and to the Founder's intention. Why, the opinion of Dr. Bouchier is delivered to us, and the reasons upon which he grounded it.  
First, The Oath being accessary to the Statutes did only restrain those persons from vexatious appeals, 
Pag. 8.  who were expelled according to the appointment and direction of the Statute, and according to the form therein laid down and prescribed.  
What he means by the Oath being accessary to the Statute, I shall leave it to himself to explain. I take the Oath itself, since the very words of it are inserted into a Statute, to be as much part of the Statutes of Exeter-Colledge, as any thing else in them is. An Oath imposed by an Act of Parliament is part of the Act, and the words of it disclose the mind of the Legislators as much as any thing contained in the body of the Act, or of any other Act, to which the Oath (to use the Author's expression) may be said to be accessary, can do. But that which imposed upon the Author was this; viz. the Stat. de causis propter quas Scholar's, &c. empowers the Rector etc. to expel a Fellow that is legitimè convictus, etc. And this Oath (says he) is accessary to that Statute, and therefore does not tie up the person expelled from Appealing, unless he be legitimè convictus. Whether Mr. Colmer was legitimè convictus or no within the intention of the Founder, we shall inquire by and by. But this fallacy, of the Oath being accessary (as he calls it) to this Statute, must not escape without a detection. When an Oath is imposed by a Law upon such as Act by Virtue thereof, or are bound by it, to put it in execution or to obey accordingly, there the Oath is relative to the Law, and the Obligation of it reaches no farther than the Law carries it. But where an Oath is imposed by a separate distinct Law, without any such relation, there the Law that imposeth the Oath creates a duty of performing it in the genuine sense, that the words import, and in this case of ours, in the plain, literal and Grammatical sense. If there were a Statute of the College concerning Appeals, allowing them in some cases, and restraining them in others; and an Oath enjoined to observe the Statutes, or that Statute in particular, there the Oath would be what the Author calls accessary. But in this case, there is no provision made by any clause in any Statute for Appeals at all; but particular directions for the final ending of controversies and punishing offences within the College; and an Oath imposed to acquiesce in such determination.  
To prove that one may appeal, if not expelled according to the appointment and direction of the Statute, he quotes a clause out of the Probationer's Oath; si contingat me (quod absit) juxta formam & exigentiam statutorum a praedicto Collegio expelli seu amoveri, etc. Nunquam, etc. Whereas the question is upon the Fellow's Oath, in which those words secundum formam & exigentiam Statutorum do not occur. Tho if they were there, it would not alter the case much, unless it was made appear that Mr. Colmer was not Statutably Expelled. He was Expelled by the Persons, that have authority by the Statutes to Expel, and for a crime that by the Statutes deserves Expulsion, so that the forma & exigentia was at least so far observed. And if it were screwed farther and made to extend to the merits of the cause; than it were impertinent to impose an Oath not to Appeal, and at the same time to leave men at liberty to Appeal when ever they find or think themselves aggrieved.  
His second Argument is, that the Statute requires a legal conviction. legitimè convictus, etc.  
If the Founder had required what we call a legal conviction, he would I presume have used the word legalitèr or secundum legem terrae or the like; legitimè not being a word that enforces a reference to the Common-Law. If he had required a legal conviction, he would not have directed the prosecution to be before persons that cannot in a strict acceptation of the word, legally convict, A legal conviction is upon Oath, which the Rector and Senior-Fellows have no power to administer, and some of the crimes mentioned in the Stat. de causis propter quas Scholar's, &c. are such as a man cannot be legally convicted of but by Jury; as wilful manslaughter, manifest perjury, etc. and yet of these a Scholar may be legitimè convictus within the intention of the Statute Coram Rectore, etc. who cannot impannel a Jury. So that the word legitimè convictus cannot in the nature of the thing import the strictness and formality of a legal conviction; But (says he) the proofs were so far from making a legal conviction, etc. Proofs making a conviction is another of his Expressions, that no body else would have used.  
It is the Verdict of a Jury or the Sentence of a Judge that makes the conviction; Proofs are but Evidence; and a man may be legally convict without them, as when a Jury finds a Verdict upon their own knowledge. But according to this Gentleman's interpretation of the Statute the word legitimè convictus must signify convicted upon such proof, as would upon a Trial at Law be sufficient legal proof to convict, and every man that is not so convicted, may appeal. Which as it is a new-fangled Interpretatton, and scarce deserves an answer; So it is contrary to the common acceptation of words. A legal conviction (which he would have the words of the Statute Import) may be, though the Evidence be deficient, and the Jury corrupt, as a judgement of a Court in a cause depending before them judicially, is a legal judgement, though there be error in it. Every Verdict in a criminal cause is legale judicium parium; and is so true in the eye of the Law, that the party convicted has no remedy, though he be wronged, for there lies no Attaint in criminal matters. So the Sentence of the Rector and Fellows in Mr. Colmer's case was, legitima convictio, because they had conusance of his cause; and as the Law of the Realm cuts off Appeals from the Verdict of a Jury in criminal causes, so do the Statutes of the College bar all Appeals from such a Sentence.  
Words are to be understood secundum subjectam materiam; the word proof generally speaking is understood of proof by Jury, which is the Common-Law trial; but how many Cases have we in our Books in which that word is otherwise taken, because determined so by the subject matter? Legitimè convictus in the Statutes of a College must of necessity be understood of such a Conviction as the Statutes direct. But the Statutes neither do require, nor can prescribe what we call a Legal Conviction, because they cannot invest the Rector, etc. with authority to hold a Court, and administer Justice according to Law.  
But for a full and clear answer (if what has been said do not suffice) let us examine how the word Legitimè is applied in other Statutes; and hear the Founder explaining himself.  
In the Statute de Elect. Rector. & ejus juramento, we find the word Legitimè twice used; 1. Where all Scholars in nominationibus, electionibus, admissionibus, aliisve negotiis utilitatem Collegii concernentibus, etc. interest habentes, ac rite & legitimè secundum consuetudinem vocati & requisiti, and then refusing to give their Votes for the Election of a new Rector, are subjected to a penalty. Here the word legitimè is explained by per consuetudinem, the custom of the College.  
2dly. Before they proceed to Election the Statute must be read per Subrectorem, aut eo absente vel legitimè impedito, per Scholarem maximê Seniorem, etc. here legitimè impediri imports a reasonable cause of absence.  
3dly. In the Statute de sedendo ad mensam; Battellarii nec in aulâ nec alibi intrà Collegium absque causa legitima & approbata, alium quam Latinum aut Grecum exercitent sermonem sub paenâ pro arbitrio Rectoris injungendâ. Here causa legitima is such a cause as the Rector shall allow to be a reasonable cause.  
4thly. In the Statute de ordinationibus bis in Anno ad minis legendis, it is provided, That if any of the Scholars be absent from the Reading of the Statutes, impedimento legitimo cessante, per eum qui convocavit approbando, such absent Scholar shall be turned out of Commons for fifteen days. Here impedimentum legitimum, is such hindrance as the Rector, or in his absence the Sub-Rector shall allow to be a reasonable cause of Excuse.  
5. By the Statute de Pernoctatione, if a Scholar offend the fourth time in that kind and be thereof, Legitimè convictus Judicio Rectoris & quinque aliorum maximè Seniorum vel majoris partis eorundem, etc. he is to be expelled. Here a lawful conviction is a conviction upon such a proof of his guilt as shall satisfy the judgement of the Rector, and the more part of the five Signior Fellows. And in the common acceptation of words, Coram Rectore, etc. & quinque aliis Scholaribus maximè Senioribus in the Stat. de causis propter quas Scholar's, &c. is the same there with Judicio Rectoris & quinque aliorum, etc. here.  
Now since it appears by these Instances, that the word legitimè had not in the Founder's intention any relation to what in strictness of speech we call legal; why should we tie it up to that sense in the case in question? Especially since in the Statute for the Expulsion of the Rector, sufficientes informationes are all that are required, and the sufficiency of them must rest in the judgement of the persons that are impowered to expel him, because he is debarred of any Appeal.  
His third Argument is, That in the Oath itself, the word mea shows plainly, that the demerita must be in a true, and not in an imputed sense. The English of which I take to be, if the Author would deliver himself in such words as other men use, That if a man be expelled for a Crime, of which he is really not guilty, he may appeal, notwithstanding his Oath, because of the words propter mea demerita; and a man that is innocent, is not expelled for his demerits.  
Yes, a man that is indicted of Felony, and convicted and executed, though innocent, suffers for his Crime. When a man has undergone such a Trial as the Law requires, and is convicted, in the eye of the Law he is guilty, and must undergo whatever the Law inflicts, for a Crime that the Law says is his. But it is a foolish and childish quibble to catch at the word mea, and apply it as the Doctor has done: If the words propter mea demerita had been left out, yet all men would have understood the Expulsion spoken of to be meant of an Expulsion for an Offence; and then expressio eorum quae tacitè insunt nibil operatur. Nor does he act fairly, in quoting the words mea demerita, without the word forsan: The Oath runs, propter mea forsan demerita; so that the Founder considered, that though a person ought not to be expelled but for his demerits, yet so it might fall out, that a person expelled might be innocent▪ and otherwise of good worth and fame; quantum cunque aliàs mihi probitatis & vitae merita suffragentur: in which case, for peace and quiet sake, he requires an Oath to submit to the Sentence, so far forth as not to call the persons that pronounced it, in question for it before any Court or Judge whatsoever.  
But this mischief would follow, 
Pag. 9  if a person that is innocent of the Crime objected, might not appeal; viz. He must be forced to own That by virtue of his Oath, whereof he is not guilty; which were great impiety.  
But I can see no such Consequence as that: If I am bound or sworn to submit to an Award, as I am equally concluded by it, whether it be just or unjust, so my submitting to it is no confession or acknowledgement on my part, that it is just, but proceeds from the obligation that I have put myself under, to be concluded by it, right or wrong. Mr. Colmer (upon a supposition of his innocence) was under no obligation by his Oath to acknowledge the Sentence just, or to own himself guilty; he might have taken all prudential methods of clearing his Reputation, without impeaching or molesting the Persons who pronounced Sentence against him: he might have had the Woman solemnly examined before a Magistrate, in his own presence, where by many circumstances the true Father might have been found out, and his innocence cleared: he might have had an Action at Law against any of the Witnesses; and upon the Trial the truth would, in all likelihood, have come out: he might, if injured, by discovering and acquainting the Rector and Fellows who expelled him, with such Evidences of his innocence as did not appear upon his Trial, have entitled himself to a Readmission, which would have restored him in Reputation to all intents and purposes. But this reason drawn from the word mea, etc. (if there were any weight in it) would do Mr. Colmer no service, unless he were really innocent; which that he is not, I appeal to the Depositions and Allegations aforesaid.  
The fourth Reason is, That the plain design of the Oath is to secure the College from any Action at Law, or Disturbance from abroad; That an Appeal to the Visitor is not expressly forbidden; That, in an equitable sense, those general words may be intended to restrain the Party from Appeal to an extraneous, not a domestic Court; to a foreign Judge, not to the Visitor, who is a part, and the first Member of the College.  
It is true, that the design of the Oath was to secure the College from any Action at Law, or disturbance from abroad; and as true, that the disturbance given lately to the College, was a disturbance from abroad: The Bishop is not a Member of the College; he has no Name in the Book, nor Seat in the Chapel, nor any Lodging in the House, not so much as when he comes to Visit. All Judges, but the Rector and seven signior Fellows, are Judices extranei, within the intention of the Founder, as has been observed already from the Statute, De causis, propter quas scholar's, &c. where aliquis Judex extrinsecus Ecclesiasticus vel Saecularis, is directly opposed to the Rector and signior Fellows.  
That an Appeal to the Visitor is not expressly mentioned, is true; that is, it is not mentioned by name: but it is as expressly forbidden, as if it had been named; as expressly as the Command, Thou shalt do no Murder, forbids John a Styles to commit Murder. The Author had read a Rule in Law, That the Jurisdiction of the King's Courts at Westminster, is not excluded by an Act of Parliament, unless they be named; and this he applies to the Power of a Visitor. Whereas those Courts are of Ancient and General Jurisdiction, which therefore is not supposed to be excluded, unless by name: But the Power of a Visitor is created and limited by the Statutes of the College, and can therefore claim no such exemption from the general words, whereby all Appeals are renounced. Whereas he urges, That an Appeal to the Visitor was most obvious to be thought on, and would therefore have been mentioned, if designed to be precluded: I may with better reason turn it upon himself; If it was so obvious to be thought on, it would have been excepted, if not designed to be restrained, as well as other foreign Remedies.  
The fifth Argument is, Because these Interpretations of the Oath are most consonant to Law, and least tending to establish Arbitrary Power, and to exclude legal Remedies.  
It has been said already, That the Oath is to be taked in the plain, literal, and grammatical sense, from which the Rector and Fellows are sworn not to depart; and therefore it is in vain in this Case to urge specious pretences of what may seem in the Author's Opinion consonant to Law. The urging of inconveniences, is quarrelling with the Oath itself, as if it needed mending. We must now take it as it is, and it must and aught to be observed according to the literal and grammatical sense, unless that sense be directly contrary to Law; which it is not. It is not against the Law for a man to wave his right of Appealing, no more than it is against Law for a man to give a release of Errors. A man may cedere Jure suo. Quilibet potest renunciare Juri pro se introducto. If an Appeal would lie to the Visitor, in case this Oath had not been enjoined, than a renunciation quomodolibet appellationi in vim pacti, is a renunciation of that remedy. The Founder must be allowed to grant his Benefaction on his own terms: Cujus est dare ejus est disponere. And now this is the true state of the present Case. A Fellow is admitted upon this Condition, amongst others, That in case he shall be expelled by the Rector and seven Seniors, he shall never give them nor the College any trouble, by seeking remedy elsewhere. His accepting a Fellowship with this promise, is therefore called a Pactum in the very Oath; quomodolibet appellationi in vim pacti renuncio. I cannot but observe how these words are concealed by an etc. in the late Pamphlet: they seemed to carry such a force along with them, as the Author was not willing a Reader should take notice of. Tho if it should be admitted that a person expelled as aforesaid, is not precluded from seeking remedy by Law; and that so private a Constitution as that of a particular College, does not, nor can exclude the Jurisdiction of the King's Courts: yet it cannot in this Case but exclude an Appeal to the Visitor, whose Authority is grounded upon, and created by the Statutes themselves. And can it be conceived, that a Founder would invest the Visitor with a Power to receive Appeals, and at the same time lay an Obligation by Oath upon all of his Foundation not to bring any?  
What is said concerning Arbitrary Power, is ridiculous: Arbitrary Power is power exercised without or against Law; but the Rector and Fellows have Power by their Statutes, and those confirmed by Letters-Patents; and they are under an Oath to observe their Statutes, and to act according to the direction and intent of them. And why should it be thought, that the Judgement of eight Divines, and under an Oath, should be more arbitrary than that of a single Commissary, not sworn at all?  
As for the exclusion of legal Remedies, a man may, to be sure, preclude himself of them; and if a renunciation quibuslibet Juris remediis, does not preclude him as far as words can do it, I know not what words can. This Constitution, perhaps, does not restrain the Jurisdiction of the Courts of Law; but it certainly makes him perjured, that having taken this Oath, shall apply himself to them for redress. And where is the Justice in allowing a man legal remedies against wrong-doing, when he has quitted them of his own accord? When a man has submitted to a Rule of Court not to bring a Writ of Error, or a Bill in Equity; does he undergo any hardship by being bound to obey it, though there be Error in the Judgement, or though he might have had relief in Equity, had he not tied himself up from seeking it? Tho there is little reason from the Constitution to apprehend that wrong will be done. And it is every whit as reasonable, and perhaps much more so, that one Fellow should acquiesce in the Sentence of the College, than that the Rector and Seniors should, upon his Complaint, be called before another Judge, to whom they must submit without Appeal.  
It must be remembered too, That though the Founder has taken good care that none of the Fellows may receive wrong, yet he was concerned to do it in such a manner, as that no Grievance, Prejudice, or Disturbance might accrue to the Society, in case any such wrong should happen. The Common Good and Interest of the Whole was the chief End of his Legislation: and for a Private Interest to give place to a Public Good, is not only reasonable in itself, but absolutely necessary for the support of all Communities.  
Thus I have endeavoured to give an Answer to the Doctor's five Reasons why an Appeal should lie.  
The next thing our Author does, is to acquaint us with the Arguments upon which his Lordship grounded his Opinion, That an Appeal lay to himself; and that, as Ordinary, He was the proper Judge of Appeals.  

Pag. 12.  The first is, Since a Fellow may appeal, there must be a competent Judge of the Appeal; and not only no other intermediate Judge can be assigned, but all other Judges are, in Causes relating to the College, expressly excluded.  
If it be not contrary to the Statutes for a Fellow to appeal, there must be a competent Judge of the Appeal: But I have endeavoured to prove, and hope I have made it clear, That a Fellow may not appeal. And a farther Argument may be drawn for it, from the Founder's not having appointed a Judge to receive and determine an Appeal; which without question he would have done, if he had not intended there should be no Appeals; for he is very particular in directing how and by whom the several Controversies and Differences, that may arise within the Society, shall be composed.  
All other Judges are excluded by Statute. What are they excluded from? Why, from receiving Appeals. If all other Judges besides the Bishop of Exeter had been expressly by Statute excluded from receiving Appeals, it would be very strong on his Lordship's side, that he might receive them: But the Statute that is quoted for this, is the Statute de Visitatione, which commits to the Bishop of Exeter, and his Deputy, a● praeterea nemini, Power to come and Visit. Which if it makes at all for his purpose, it proves too much; for if Visiting and receiving Appeals be one and the same thing, than Dr. Masters his coming as he did, was a Visitation; and his Lordship could not justify his own coming again till five years after. But this Statute has nothing in it concerning Appeals; and it is observable how hard his Lordship was put to it to find out a colourable pretence for his Jurisdiction.  
His second Reason is: The force of the word Ordinarius does necessarily import Universality of Jurisdiction: and therefore, 
Pag. 12.  where no intermediate Jurisdiction is placed any where else, this, to prevent the defect of Justice, must be let in.  
This is such a Reason, as that Respect to his Lordship's Character tempts me to believe the Author has imposed it upon him, and that his Lordship never entertained so weak a thought himself. The word Ordinarius is not in the Statute Substantiuè; the Bishop is constituted Ordinarius Visitator, which in English signifies the Visitor of course. To dream of Universality of Jurisdiction, and of Episcopal Jurisdiction, because of the sound of a word, is a Conceit that needs no other refutation than the mentioning of it.  
The third Reason is: Because the words in the beginning of the Statute are general, and apt for an universal Provision; and therefore, though the Visitation of the whole College be restrained to Requisition, or five years, the general words cannot be satisfied therewith; for there may be a Combination of the Majority of the Seniors, who only have power to desire it.  
But those general words that the Author urges, are but by way of Introduction to the particular Provision that is made afterwards for the obviating and redressing those inconveniences that are recited in the Preamble of the Statute. The Founder takes notice; That it is impossible to make Laws and Statutes, which may not by some invented fraud be defeated of their due execution; and eam ob causam reposes a confidence in the Bishops of Exeter for the time being, ut ad hoc alvearium conservandum invigilent, ut Statuta & Ordinationes dicti Collegii firmiter observentur, etc. Jura, libertates & privilegia defendantur & protegantur. And in order to the effecting of all this, what particular provision is made? Why, Eâ de causâ lieeat Domino Episcopo, etc. & nulli alii nec aliis, quoties per Rectorem etc. fuerit requisitus, nec non absque requisitione ullâ de quinquennio in quinquennium semel, ad dictum Collegium per se vel suum Commissarium, etc. liberè accedere. And then directs how the Visitation shall be proceeded in. To argue, That because some general words in the Preamble may seem not sufficiently answered by the Provision made in the Body of the Statute, is to find fault with the Founder, as not having provided a Plaster broad enough for the Sore, which must therefore be stretched by Construction. When an Act of Parliament recites a general inconvenience, and proceeds to Enact how it shall be redressed, the Judges in Westminster-hall do not use to extend the Purview farther than the Lawmakers have done; but leave that to the Wisdom of future Parliaments. It was not for nothing, that the word semel was inserted. Can it be rationally supposed, that he who gave the Bishop leave to have free access to the College once in five years, ea de causa, that the Statutes and Ordinances thereof might be duly observed, would, if he had been asked the question, Whether he might come oftener? have answered, Yes, he may come as oft as he pleases? He that tied up the requisition to be made by the Rector, or, in his absence, by the Subrector, and four other signior Fellows at least, (& quatuor alios ad minus ex septem maximè senioribus) would he, if he had been asked, Whether he might come upon the complaint of any particular Scholar? have answered, Yes, upon application made to him by any Member of the College; or without such application, if he please himself? The Author would make a distinction betwixt a Visitation of the whole College, and some other more particular Visitation, or the Bishop's coming to set some one Controversy straight: But the Statute de Visitatione, which is the Law that empowers him to come at all, gives him no other Authority than to come and Visit the College; and that no oftener than as aforesaid.  
If his coming upon a particular occasion, without making what the Author calls a general and solemn Visitation, shall not bar him from coming again within five years, than he may come when he pleases, Visit as oft as he list; and whereas the General Visitation is tied up to three days, he may make his particular Visitations hold five years apiece, and the College at that rate might never be rid of him. At that rate, the word semel, and the request of quatuor ad minus, etc. were vainly inserted.  
The supposed Combination of the Majority of the Seniors, is but a supposition, and will therefore be best answered by another supposition; viz. If the Visitor come oftener than the Statutes direct, and when he is not requested by the persons who only have Authority to request him; he may combine with some restless and turbulent Spirits in the College, with Criminals, and such as cannot be safe under a good Discipline, to break in upon the Statutes; he may assume an Authority to undo whatever the Rector and signior Fellows have done for the good of the House; instead of taking care that the Statutes and Ordinances be firmly observed, he may listen to the Advice of a Civilian, who may furnish him with Distinctions to overthrow them; and these Proceedings of his may come to be justified by a young Lawyer in Print, which may work in some unwary Heads a belief that all's well and statutable, when by this means the College is brought into Confusion.  
The fourth Reason is; The Visitor was upon like reasons limited to a Quinquennial, as a Bishop to a Triennial Visitation; viz. to prevent the Charge of Proxies and Sportulage: and therefore as a Bishop, when barred from solemn and costly Visitations, is not restrained from exercising the Ordinary Acts of Jurisdiction; so neither during the Quinquennial Term does the Visitor's Power cease.  
That the Visitor was limited upon like reasons that a Bishop was, is gratis dictum; but the difference is this, and it is very plain: The Bishop has an Ordinary Jurisdiction by Law all over his Diocese, and had before the Canon concerning Triennial Visitations was made. But the Visitor has no Jurisdiction nor Power at all, but by the Statutes of the College; They create his Authority, and antecedent to them he has none; and therefore what degree of Power they invest him with, that he has, and no more. And therefore his Power during the quinquennial Term, is a Chimaera, a fancy: the Government of the College during all that time is lodged elsewhere; and any application made to him to concern himself in it, is null and void, unless made by the Rector and Four at least of the seven signior Fellows.  
Upon the whole then, I hope, it appears by what has been said, That Mr. Colmer had no grievance done him; That if he had, he had no liberty of Appealing; That the Bishop of Exeter, neither as Ordinary nor otherwise, is Judge of Appeals: and ought not in Justice to have received his.  
The Author of the Account, entitles his Second Section, 
§ 2  Concerning the proceeding of the Bishop and his Commissary upon the Appeal.  
Upon which Subject, I shall not much insist: for if the Appeal itself was unlawful, All that was done pursuant to it, is so too. He takes some pains to free the Bishop from any imputation of partiality to Mr. Colmer. I Charge him with none. I only argue against his Jurisdiction. He quarrels with the Rector for denying the Jurisdiction of the Court; when all that the Rector and Fellows did, was only to tender a Protestation against the Commissaries intermeddling with Mr. Colmer's Case. They submitted to him as the Visitors Commissary, and desired him to proceed ad alia Visitationis negotia. He relates some extravagant Expressions of the Rectors, which were never said by him; all that he said like it, amounting to no more than this, That from censures inflicted within the College, no Redress was to be sought elsewhere.  
The two Protestations tendered at that time, are transcribed and inserted at the end of this Discourse, to rectify some mistakes that the Author has committed, relating to this business.  
I pass by also what he says concerning the Vice-Chancellor's having no Title to the Cognizance of this cause; the Question not being here, whether the Vicechancellor have, or no? But whether the Visitor?  
What follows, is declamation.  

§ 3.  The third Section concerns the Offences of the Rector and others, which obliged the Visitor to make his Solemn and General Visitation.  
The first Offence that he alleges, is, That as soon as Mr. Colmer was reinstated by the Commissary, he was, immediately after his departure, again Expelled, or rather Disowned by the Rector. For the Justice of this second Sentence, I refer to the Relation given of it before, and the Depositions that were taken in the Cause.  
The only Objection made against this Second Sentence of Expulsion, is, 
Pag. 12.  that either Mr. Colmer was now a Fellow or not; If a Fellow, why disavowed? If not, how could he fall under the Rector's Jurisdiction? He was not a Rightful Fellow, because expelled by those that had power to expel him, and for an Offence that merits Expulsion by the Statute. But he was a Pretended Fellow, because restored by the Commissary, who exercised a pretended Authority therein. His Name was writ in the Book again, he kept his Chamber and his Place in the Hall and Chappel. He pretended himself to be a Fellow, and consequently subjected himself to the Government of the College. The Rector would not have claimed any Jurisdiction over him, if he would have laid no claim to his Fellowship: But by so doing, he subjected himself to the Jurisdiction of the Statute; so that Mr. Colmer, at least by his own admittance, must be bound by this Second Sentence, because by claiming his Fellowship, he owned the Rector's Authority.  

Pag. 12.  But there is no Statute provided for the Expulsion of Intruders and pretended Fellows. There is a Statute provided for the Expulsion of Fellows; and a man may be a Fellow, that has not a good Title to his Fellowship. Officers de Facto are liable to the same Penalties for undue executing of their Offices; 
Cr. Eliz. 775. Hales Plac. Cor. 114. Moor 112. n. 252.  that Officers de Jure are. If a mere Layman be inducted into a Benefice, he is, whilst he continues in possession, a Parson de Facto; he is equally subject to his Ordinary, as if he were a Clerk. A Gaoler de facto shall answer for Escapes. Nay, and we find a difference made betwixt an Officer that has a colour of Right, and one that has not so much as that. Mr. Colmer had a colour to claim his Fellowship, because reinstated by the Visitor's Commissary, who had a Jurisdiction in the College by the Statute, and claimed the Cognizance of Mr. Colmer's Cause: So that he was at least a pretended Fellow, or a Fellow de facto, and therefore subject to the Laws of the Society.  
The other Crimes that he reckons up, are personal to the Rector; with which the world has, or will receive satisfaction, that he is unworthily aspersed.  
The fourth Section concerns the Visitation itself, 
§ 4.  the Evidence there given, and the Sentences there pronounced.  
In this Part, the first particular to be discoursed of, is, the ground upon which the Rector and Fellows protested against the Bishop's Visiting at that time; viz. because Dr. Masters, by a Commission from the Bishop, had lately exercised Acts of Jurisdiction and Visitation in the College; and that therefore within the Term of five years, which was not yet expired, his Lordship was barred from any other Visitation.  
The Question than is, Whether Dr. Masters's coming and acting as he did, was a Visitation within the intention of the Statute de Visitatione, or not?  
That it was, may be argued, 1. Because the Grant of Licence to the Bishop of Exeter to Visit the College, is expressed in these words; viz. Liceat Domino Episcopo, etc. absque requisitione ullâ de quinquennio in quinquennium, semel ad dictum Collegium, per se, vel suum Commissarium, etc. libere accedere, etc. 'Tis not mentioned, whether to Visit the Whole, or a Part; whether to make a general Enquiry of matters relating to the Statutes, or only some one or more. Only the Visitor is empowered to come in person, or send his Commissary, upon what occasion soever, once in five years, and must have liberum accessum. They may freely come, and exercise their Power of Visiting. The Bishop has Authority, when he so comes or sends, super omnibus & singulis particulis & Articulis in dictis Statutis contentis, etc. Rectorem, Scholar's & Electos interrogare & inquirere, etc. But if he does not think fit, or find no occasion to make a general Visitation, may he not confine himself, or restrain his Commissary to some particulars? Cui licet quod majus est, ei licet & quod minus. Et Omne majus continet in se minus. But whatever Power he exerts, whether generally, or but in a particular Case, proceeds from him as Visitor, because he has no Authority within or over the College, in any other capacity; nor can exercise any act of Jurisdiction, but at the times appointed by the Statutes for his Visitation. Now, Dr. Masters did libere accedere, and made use of the Visitor's Authority in several Acts. He set up a Citation, summoned the Rector and Fellows, called over their Names, adjourned from time to time, and from one place in the College to another; sentenced a Fellow to be restored, awarded him Costs, and wrote his Name in the Book.  
And what though his Proceedings, in taking cognizance of Mr. Colmer's Cause, were illegal, and therefore protested against by the College? Does a Visitor's stretching his Authority beyond its bounds, make his Visitation therefore stand for nothing? At that rate, he may do as many Illegal Acts as he will; and the Wisdom of the Founder, in composing this Statute of Visitation, consists only in tying him up from doing the College any good, and looking to the due execution of their Statutes oftener than once in five years.  
2. The Commission by which Dr. Masters acted, was granted by the Bishop, by virtue of that Clause in the Statute that gives him leave to come or send his Deputy to Visit.  
3. The Bishop styles himself in the Commission, Jonathan Providentiâ Divinâ Exon Episcopus, Collegii Exon in Academiâ Oxon Patronus & Visitator: So that he conceived himself entitled to make out such a Commission no otherwise than as he was Visitor. And as such, Mr. Colmer had appealed to him. Ad nos Exon. Episcopum praedictum & Collegii Exoniensis memorati Visitatorem legitimum ritè & legitimè appellaverit.  
4. That the Commissary did visit, may be inferred from the Notion of a Visitation, which the Author himself has given us; and we may presume it comes from Dr. Bouchier: The Nature of a Visitation, says he, is a voluntary Enquiry into matters Criminal, and Correction thereupon. Now, Dr. Masters's coming was voluntary; he came at no request: (unless Mr. Colmer's Appeal must stand for a Request). And he was to inquire into matters Criminal; viz. Whether Mr. Colmer were guilty of Incontinence? Ad cognoscendum & discutiendum hujusmodi causam appellationis, totumque negotium principale cum suis incidentibus, emergentibus, dependentibus, annexis & connexis quibuscunque. Et ad audiendum hinc inde proposita & proponenda & ad probationes admittendum. He was likewise to inquire, Whether the Rector and Fellows had done Injustice in expelling him? And that Correction was to follow upon this Enquiry, is manifest: For if the person that had been censured, should have been found a Criminal, the Punishment of Expulsion was to have been entirely inflicted. For upon Mr. Colmer's Appeal, the Bishop had granted an Inhibition, by which it was intended he should remain in possession till the re-hearing of his Cause.  
That Dr. Masters' coming was really a Visitation, is so clear, that the Author is forced to have recourse to a distinction betwixt a general and a particular Visitation; and therefore calls that of the Bishop in person, a solemn and general Visitation. But all we desire is, to have Dr. Masters his coming, and acting as he did, stand for a Visitation; be it general or particular, it is all one to us; The Statutes make no difference; they give way to no Visitation at all, without requisition, more than once in five years.  
And that a Visitor's exerting any act of Jurisdiction within a College, when he has no Authority but as Visitor, has been accounted a Visitation, may appear by what happened in another College in Oxford not many years since, where Dr. Morley, late Bishop of Winchester, was their Visitor, and confined, as the Bishops of Exeter are in our Case, to a quinquennial Visitation. That Bishop must be allowed to understand the extent of his Authority as well as another, and equally concerned to support it: yet when a Member of the College, that had been debarred of a Fellowship, carried a complaint to him as Visitor, he refused to take cognizance of it, because five years were not elapsed since his last Visitation. And though he did it afterward, he was empowered by a Royal Commission; so that he was not sensible of any Jurisdiction that he had, as Ordinary, to receive the Appeal; and conceived his coming or sending to determine it by his own Authority, as Visitor, to be as much a Visitation, as what the Author calls a solemn and general Visitation; or at least concluded, that the Statutes by which he was empowered to Visit but once in five years, debarred him from taking any Judicial Cognizance of the Affairs of the College at other times.  
But the Bishop of Exeter had power to receive and determine this Appeal, as Ordinary. 
Obj. p. 28.   
This is a new Doctrine, never heard of in the College before, nor perhaps ever thought on till of late. That he was applied to by Mr. Colmer, as Visitor, and granted Dr. Masters his Commission as such, and that Dr. Masters was received by the College as the Visitor's Commissary, has been observed already; to which may be added, that the word Ordinarius is not so much as in the Commission: nay, and that he acted as such, by complying with the Statute de Visitatione, in not adjourning his Commission beyond the three days limited by the Statute, has been opened in the Narrative. But when the Bishop was resolved, upon Mr. Colmer's second Expulsion, to come himself, than was this Invention set on foot, 
Ibid.  That the determining an Appeal, was no Visitation, because the Commission was restrained to the hearing and determining that Cause only: and he might receive an Appeal, as Ordinary.  
This is the next fallacy that the Author goes upon; and which has as little appearance of Law and Reason, as any of the rest. For how comes the Bishop of Exeter to have Episcopal Jurisdiction over the Members of Exeter College? The Jurisdictions of Bishops are circumscribed within the limits of their several Dioceses; which bounds are set to them, either by positive Laws in being, or by immemorial Custom, which presupposeth a Law. And they are not only bounded as to Place, but with respect to the subject-matter of their Jurisdiction; viz. the Causes that fall under their Cognizance. Where an Act of Parliament or a Canon, received and submitted to as a Law of this Nation, does not empower a Bishop to hold Plea, there he has no Authority; and if a Bishop breaks this boundary, and invades the conusance of Causes that are not what the Law calls Spiritual, because submitted to the Jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts, he incurs the Penalty of an old Statute, that of Praemuniri.  
The College being a College of Divines, and the Visitor an Ecclesiastical Person, has, it seems, with the help of some misapplied words in the Statutes, Ordinarius Visitator, and per censuras, helped the Doctor and the Author to dress up a Notion of Episcopal Jurisdiction in this Case: whereas the Bishop's Authority is wholly conferred upon him by the Statutes, and as Visitor only; and the Visitation of a College, by virtue of a Right derived from the Founder, let who will be entitled to it, is an act of Temporal Jurisdiction, because the Founding of a College, and giving them Laws for the good Government of the Society, is a mere Temporal Act, which a Temporal Lord is as capable of, as a Spiritual: and such Temporal Lord, or other Lay person, may equally exercise all Jurisdictions whatsoever that a Founder may reserve to himself, or confer upon another.  
This invading of Temporal Rights, under a pretence of Ecclesiastical Authority, and particularly invading and encroaching upon the Temporal Rights of Founders, occasioned that remarkable Statute of Provisions made in the 25th year of the Reign of K. Edward III. in which the King, Lords and Commons entitle themselves to their Temporal Rights, such as the Custody of Voidances, Presentments, Collations, etc. as Lords and Advowees; and declare against disturbances of free Elections, etc. as being against the good disposition and will of the first Founders. The same will appear by perusing the other Statutes against Provisors. All the Rights of a Founder, belonging to him as such, are recoverable by the Common-Law of the Realm; and, if controverted, are determinable by That, and That only. The Right of Visitation is one of them, when reserved to the Founder, or by him settled upon, or invested in any other person: whoever is entitled to it, derives his Title from him; and it is a Temporal Right. For a Visitor, because himself falls out to be an Ecclesiastical Person, to apply Ecclesiastical Censures upon such an occasion, is as proper, as if a Bishop should Excommunicate his Tenant for not paying his Rent, or his Servant for not performing the Duty of his place.  
Ann. 3 & 4 Eliz. Coveney Precedent of Magdalen-College in Oxford, appealed to the Queen in Chancery, from a Sentence of Deprivation given by the Bishop of Winchester, Founder and Visitor of that College: The discussing of which Appeal was committed to Justice Brown and Justice Weston; who, after divers Conferences with the Civilians, resolved, That the Appeal did not lie; for that this Cause was out of the Statutes of 24 & 25 Hen. 8. Nor did he observe the Order of the Statutes, (i. e. he ought not to have appealed to the Queen from the Sentence of the Bishop, but (if the Cause had belonged to Ecclesiastical Conuzance) the Appeal ought to have been from the Bishop to the Archbishop, and from Him to the Queen). And this matter of Deprivation was merely Temporal, and as by a Lay-Patron. Ex hoc sequitur (says the Book) That if the Precedent be Expelled, he may have an Assize, or other Action at Common-Law; per que, etc. Dyer fol. 209. a. This is an Authority in point, That the Visitation of a College, by a Founder or his Successor, is a matter of mere Temporal Right.  
Nor do the words in the Statutes that are laid hold on, warrant any such Inference as is made from them. That of Ordinarius Visitator does not deserve an Answer. Nor must the words per Censuras needs be understood so as to give the Visitor the Jurisdiction of an Ordinary. It is not said, per Censuras Ecclesiasticas; nor if it had been expressed so, would it have proved the Point; since an Archdeacon may inflict Ecclesiastical Censures. The word Censura signifies no more than a Penalty, and sometimes less, a Rebuke, a Reprehension. The late Act of Convocation at Oxford is called Censura, though it proceeded from no Ecclesiastical Authority. When a man is said to have been censured in the Star-Chamber, no body understands the meaning to be, That that Court Excommunicated him: It may with as much reason be pretended, That where ever the word Judex is used, Judex Ecclesiasticus must be understood, as that the word Censura must of necessity import Ecclesiastical Censures. But if the Statute had been full in it, and that Ecclesiastical Censures had been expressed, yet the Bishop's Title to his Episcopal Jurisdiction there, would have been never a whit the better. For how can the private Statutes of a College bring any Crime whatsoever within the lash of Excommunication, for which a person is not by the Law of the Realm liable to that Censure? A Founder of a College may direct, That if I will enjoy the fruit of his Benefaction, I shall conform to the Orders, and submit to the Discipline of the Society: But he can no more subject me to Excommunication for breaking his Statutes, than to loss of Life or Limb, or of my private Estate. I hold not them of him, nor enjoy them by any Right or Title derived from him.  
So that if this College were situate within the Diocese of Exeter, yet the Members thereof would not, as such, be subject to him, as Bishop; nor would Offences against their Statutes bring them under his Episcopal Power, because his Jurisdiction over them, as Visitor, is a Temporal Jurisdiction; and his general Jurisdiction over the whole Diocese, as Ordinary, is of quite another nature. And quando duo Jura concurrunt in unà personâ, aequum est ac si essent in diversis.  
Besides all this, no Instance can be found by traditionary Report, or the Monuments of the College, that ever any former Bishop of Exeter exercised a Spiritual Jurisdiction over Exeter-College, or any Member of it; or did ever, in any Instruments of theirs to the College, assume that Name, or in any wise claim the Authority implied in it: and yet the College is of near 400 years standing.  
But whereas the Author tells us, p. 37. That this, as all other Colleges in Oxford, being exempt from Episcopal and Metropolitical Jurisdiction, is immediately subject to the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of the Visitor, if he be a Person competent and fit to exercise such Authority: he must mean, if he mean any thing, That whatever Authority a Bishop has, the Persons that are subject to such Authority, are subject to his Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction; and than if a Bishop be Lord of a Manor within his Diocese, or, at least, in a place exempt, he, being a Person competent and fit to exercise such Authority, may Excommunicate his Tenants for not appearing at his Court, and performing the Services incident to their Tenors. A Bishop that is Chancellor, for Example, or Justice of Peace, may Excommunicate Suitors and Offenders, and enforce his Orders by Ecclesiastical Censures. This is every whit as rational, as that a Bishop, being a Visitor of a College, etc. should take his Episcopal Authority along with him when he goes to Visit; the Visitation of a College being an act of Temporal Jurisdiction, as much as any of the rest.  
But the Colleges in Oxford are exempt from Episcopal and Metropolitical Jurisdiction, and therefore they must be subject to the Ecclesiastical Jurisdicton of their Visitor, if a Person competent, etc. What will become then of those Colleges, whose Visitors are of the Laity? must they be subject to no Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction at all? Yes; both are subject to the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction belonging to the University; which belng now legally exempted from the Jurisdiction of any Bishop or Archbishop, the Chancellor of the University, who was formerly always an Ecclesiastic, had the Jurisdiction transferred to him. And since of later-times Laymen of higher Rank have been elected into that Office, the Statutes have provided, That the Vicechancellor, who is to execute the Powers, be a Person in Holy Orders. So that there is no necessity to invest the Visitor with Episcopal Jurisdiction, because the University is exempt from that of the Bishop of the Diocese, or Archbishop of the Province.  
Nor was this College, for aught we can be informed of, ever reputed to be within the Diocese, or belonging to the Diocese of Exeter. It was anciently within that of Lincoln, and has since been exempted, together with the rest of the University; but not subjected to that of Exeter, nor of any other Bishop whatsoever. It is set free ab omni Jurisdictione, Dominio vel Potestate quorumcunque Archiepiscoporum, neenon Episcoporum & aliorum Ordinariorum: These are the words. And this Exemption reaches to every particular College, and every Member of every College; and has been always maintained accordingly, and strictly insisted upon by the University: particularly, in that famous Controversy, Temp. Rich. 2. when Archbishop Arundel pretended a Right of Visitation there; and again in K. Charles I.'s time, when Laud was Archbishop. But yet we cannot think we are beholden to this Exemption, for our being free from the Episcopal Jurisdiction of the Bishops of Exeter; forasmuch as the College was never subject to them as Ordinaries, and cannot therefore properly be said to be exempted from a Jurisdiction that never had a being.  
Nor can the Founder be supposed to have had it in his thoughts to clothe the Visitor with such an Universality of Jurisdiction as is contended for: If that had been his intention, or if he had thought it implied in the word Ordinarius, he would not have restrained him as he has done; He can exercise no Jurisdiction, but at times of Visitation; he cannot Visit, but once in five years, unless requested by the College; and when he comes, his Visitation can last no longer than two or three days at most. He cannot expel a Scholar, without the consent of the Rector and Three of the seven signior Fellows, tune in Vniversitate praesentium; nor the Rector, without the consent quatuor ex septem maximè senioribus supradictis; that is, tune in Vniversitate praesentibus; nor can he inflict any Punishment at all, but secundum exigentiam Statutorum. To which may be added, That the Visitor can put no sense of his own upon the Statutes that shall be binding, but upon request made to him by the Rector and the major part of the Fellows. Vid. Stat. de Admiss. Scholar. Item, interpretationibus, injunctionibus, declarationibus & expositionibus per Reverendos in Christo Patres Successores primi & originalis Fundatoris nostri Episcopos, super dubiis Statutorum emergentibus, ad eosdem Episcopos ex consensu Rectoris & majoris partis Scholarium delatis, faciendis, obediam.  
Since therefore the Bishop of Exeter has no Jurisdicton, as Ordinary, 
§. 2.  within Exeter-College, and has really incurred a Praemunire for acting as such, it is consequential thereupon, That whatever he has done as such, is illegal, and, the cause arising out of his Diocese, void in Law. There is an end then of his Excommunications, and of his Suspension ab Officio & Beneficio. And his declaring Dr. H.'s place void, (which is, in effect, an Amotion) and depriving the Rector, without the concurrence of such of the Society as the Statute requires ●o consent to such Acts of the Visitor, was such a Declaration and Deprivation as the Statutes do not warrant: For these he did as Visitor. And the Rector and five at least of the Seven maxim seniorum were present in the University, so that their Concurrence might have been had: But the Concurrence of Seniors to all Public Acts, 
Acc. p. 36.  is always understood to mean the consent of those that are the most signior of those that are present (true present in the University, as these were) and he that by his own Crime incapacitates himself from performing any Acts of his place, is by the Rules of Law and Reason reputed as absent. And it would be absurd in expelling a Rector, to require the consent of those Fellows that are participes Criminis, and are by the Visitor himself for that Contempt suspended ab Officio, etc. This is begging the Question. And, whether it were a Crime or Contempt to oppose and protest against the Bishop's Visiting at that time, is yet sub Judice. And if it were a contempt, the Bishop, at least, was no proper Judge of it. For since he could not exert all the Powers of Visitation without their Concurrence, and they protested against his power to visit then, and insisted upon it, as a matter of Right that they were not obliged to appear; the Bishop ought not to have proceeded in his Visitation till this Difference between him and them had been determined. He petitioned the Council indeed, and they left him to the Usual course of Law. But instead of taking that Course, he makes himself Judge in his own Cause; and since he could not amove them one by one as Visitor, because that could not be done without the Concurrence of the Rector, he having two strings to his Bow, betakes himself to his Episcopal Jurisdiction, and suspends them ab Officio & Beneficio by wholesale.  
The course of Law, which he might have taken, and would have done, if the Peace and Quiet of the College had been so much his care, as the asserting his own double-faced Jurisdiction, and perhaps revenging some pretended Affronts, is this; He might have had a Mandamus out of the Court of King's Bench, directed to the Rector, etc. of Exeter College, to command them to receive him as Visitor, and to submit to him as such. Upon the return of which Writ, the College might have shown cause why they did not. By this means the matter would have been fairly and judicially determined by a proper Court; in whose judgement all parties would have been compellable to acquiesce. But instead of this, the Bishop, who in this Controversy concerning his Right to Visit at that time, was but a party, makes himself a Judge in his own Cause: Which is so contrary to common sense, that we read in our Books, that even an Act of Parliament made against natural Equity, as to make a man Judge in his own Cause, would be void in itself, for Jura naturae sunt immutabilia. Hob. 87. 8 Co. 118.  
This Suspension therefore of the Seniors ab Officio & Beneficio being done by the Bishop as Ordinary, where he had not the least pretence to the Jurisdiction of an Ordinary, and he in pronouncing it, having made himself a Judge in his own Cause, was in itself a Nullity, and the Rector and Fellows so Suspended were not in the least incapacitated thereby; and consequently his declaring Dr. H's place void [without the Concurrence of the Rector and Three of the maximè Seniores, then present in the University] was a void Declaration, and not warranted by the Statutes. And his Deprivation of the Rector afterwards, without the consent of Four of those Seniors, was void in like manner.  
I must take notice here by the by, That this Suspension of a Fellow ab Officio, is a thing not warranted by the Statutes at all; Expulsion and College-Censures (viz. turning out of Commons, and withholding their Profits for a time) we know, and admit of: but a Suspension ab Officio is intended to disable them from performing their Duty, as Fellows; which they being sworn to, how can the Visitor suspend them, unless he could dispense with their Oaths? or that he were expressly empowered by some Statutes of the College so to suspend them? And then indeed the Obligaiion of their Oaths would consequentially cease during such Suspension.  
Again, as they are sworn to officiate, so they are liable to Expulsion if they do not give their Votes, etc. when required; Vid. Stat. de Electione Rector ', etc. and consequently, they cannot submit to this Suspension, without hazarding Expulsion.  
A Bishop's suspending ab Officio within his Diocese, cannot be argued from in this Case: For there he suspends from that Office or Cure which Himself or his Predecessors conferred; and it is his own Cure, as well as the Incumbent's; and he has Power, and does accordingly appoint another to supply it: whereas this Suspension is from an Office that he neither did nor could confer; nor has he Power to appoint another. And therefore his suspending the Fellows ab Officio, and not having Power to substitute others in their rooms, has actually put the College into a state of Distraction and Confusion; nor is there, in effect, or indeed can be, any such thing as good Government in it, till these Irregularities are redressed.  
But besides this, there are several other things, both in Dr. H.'s and the Rector's Case, that show the Injustice of his Lordship's Proceedings against them.  

Pag. 34.  As for Dr. H. it is pretended, That his Benefice is wholly incompatible with his Fellowship. The Condition of his Parsonage is, That he shall reside upon it four parts in five in the year; and the Condition of his Fellowship is, That he shall not be absent from his College above fifty days. All Livings rated above 8 l. per Annum, in any public Records, are inconsistent with a Fellowship; and upon this, 100l. are settled by Act of Parliament, etc.  
This is what is urged. In the first place, this very Question, Whether Dr. H. by accepting St. Anne's Living, had lost his Fellowship, was Statutably determined two years before? The Rector, in the year 1688. declared, That he thought himself bound to pronounce the Doctor's place void by Session, as inconsistent with his Benefice, on the Statute de Promotione, etc. and that he would do it, if it were not forthwith Statutably decided. The Doctor hereupon desired, That (by consent of the Society) it might be referred to the Visitor. But the Rector thought it more agreeable to the Statutes, and more easy to refer it to the Vicechancellor. And the Doctor's 
* Who was no other than Dr. Bouchier.  Council being consulted, declared likewise, That the Vicechancellor was the sole proper Judge in that Case. Whereupon the matter was brought before him, who upon a full hearing of both sides, declared his Judgement, That the said Benefice and Fellowship were consistent, according to the plain, literal sense of the Statutes, which (as has been said) the Rector and Fellows are sworn to observe; and therefore that the Rector could not declare the Doctor's Place void. Upon which, the Rector desisted and acquiesced, being sworn to stand to the Vice-Chancellor's determination in that Case; vid. Stat. de Jurament. Rectoris. This is the Scandal which the Bishop thought fit to take off from the College, as the Author terms it. And indeed there needs no more be said upon this matter, but that having once been Statutably determined, it ought not to hauè been moved again.  
But to take off the false Glosses, whereby the Author has imposed upon himself, and may upon others in this matter, I will endeavour to set the Case in its true light.  
By the Statute de Promotione, etc. it is provided, That si aliquis Scholaris, etc. uxorem duxerit, aut Matrimonium vel sponsalia contraxerit, aut alicui obsequio, officio aut exrcitio, per quod à Study in Vniversitate Oxon' ultrâ unum mensem in Anno, preter quinquaginta dies, superius in Statuto de Exitu ab Vniversitate, etc. pre-exceptos, impediatur, se commiserit: That then immediatè postquâm aliquod istorum Rectori, etc. cognitum fuerit, omnes jus & Titulum, etc. amittat.  
Now the acceptance of an Ecclesiastical Benefice cannot be supposed to be comprehended within this clause; 1. Because it is not in propriety of speech, either an Obsequium, Officium, or Exercitium: There are many other Employments that fall naturally under those denominations; and therefore the words of the Stat. abundantly satisfied without taking in Ecclesiastical Benefices. 2. Because the accepting of an Ecclesiastical Benefice cannot hinder a Fellow of a College from abiding in the University, and following his Study there; forasmuch as Scholars in either University abiding there for their Study, are expressly excepted out of the Stat. of 21 Hen. 8. against non-resident. 3. Because although absence from the College for longer than a Month, and Fifty days make a Session, in case of acceptance of an Officium, Obsequium, etc. yet in case of an Ecclesiastical Benefice, a years absence is allowed by the same Statute. And 4. Because when the Statute provides in what case the Acceptance of an Ecclesiastical Benefice shall be a Session, and in what not, regard is had to the value only, nor barely to the true intrinsic value neither, but to an estimated value, as taxed in publicis Regiisve menumentis. Which the Author very unfaithfully translates in any Public Records: Whereas, if the words were so to be understood, it would make strange havoc in both Universities; for whereas there are now many Benefices always reputed consistent with Fellowships, because under 8 l. per Annum in the King's Books, though to the extended value of 100 l. per Annum, and so rated and returned upon the Act of Twelve pence per Pound; all these would, according to the Author's novel Interpretation, be inconsistent with Fellowships; and the Statutes of Exeter-College, as well as many others, would very imprudently have made that distinction betwixt Benefices consistent and inconsistent; since, at this rate, hardly a Benefice in England would be found to be consistent. I call it a novel Interpretation, because it really is so; the words publicis Regiisve having always, both in this and other Colleges been taken to be synonymous, and the one explanatory of the other; both having been understood of the Records of the Taxation of Benefices in the First-fruits Office; which are publica, because all persons may have resort to them; and Regia, because they were made for ascertaining the First-fruits and Tenths, which were then vested in the Crown, when these Records were compiled, and are therefore called the King's Books. And to enforce this meaning, than which none but Cavillers would have thought of any other; it may be further observed, that the word of the Statute is Taxatum; which looks backward, and can have no reference to a Private Act of Parliament made above a Hundred years afterwards. Besides that, St. Ann's Living cannot be said to be taxed at a Hundred pounds a year; for it is the Parish that by the Act of Parliament, is taxed to make it 100 l. a year.  
The words must the rather be understood of the King's Books, because of the subject matter; which is the consistency or inconsistency of a Fellowship and a Benefice. In ascertaining which, the Statute conforms itself to the Law of the Land, by which there is a difference betwixt Livings under and over 8 l. per annum, as to their compatibility. And the 8 l. which the Law takes notice of to this pupose, is 8 l. in the King's Books, and no where else.  
But (says the Author) the Condition of his Parsonage is, That he shall reside upon it four parts in five of the year; and the Condition of his Fellowship is, That he shall not be absent from the College above fifty days.  
The Stat. de Exitu Scholar. ab Vniversitate, etc. does indeed mention Fifty days, as the utmost time allowed to be absent from the College upon ordinary occasions: But this clause follows, Illis, qui propter negotii Collegii aut ex speciali causâ & gratiâ inferius in hoc statuto annotandâ absentes fuerint, in numero absentium minimè computatis.  
Now the Gratia inferiùs annotanda is this; Non prohibemus tamen quin scholaribus & electis quibuscunque ex causis promotionis ipsorum, mortis, vel gravis infirmitatis parentum, seu precipuorum amicorum vel causis consimilibus urgentibus, per Juramentum, si opus fuerit, petentium hujusmodi licentiam in presentiâ Rectoris vel eo absente subrectoris, & majoris partis Scholarium domi existentium, affirmandis & approbandis, per eosdem concedatur certum tempus, quo abesse possint. Here no time of absence is limited, but the Rector and Fellows are at liberty for a cause to be approved of by themselves, to give leave for absence as long as they please, Habito respectu ad causas, personas, intervalla locorum & circumstantias hujusmodi.  
So that a Fellowship has no such condition annexed to it, as the Author tells us it has. A Fellow indeed must not be absent above Fifty days without leave; but with leave he may be absent Five Hundred.  
It is to be observed too, That causa Promotionis is one of the weighty Causes for which the Statute allows a Licence for absence to be obtained, without restraining it to any certain time. Which word I understand not, if this be not its meaning, Where a Fellow is in hopes of, or is advanced to a preferment, that does not make a Session expressly within the Statute de Promotione & causis deserendi, etc. In such case he may have leave from the House to be absent as long as they think fit to give leave.  
To which may be added, another consideration, which perhaps is peculiar to this case of Dr. H. and has a considerable influence upon the merits of it.  
(Says the Author) The Condition of his Parsonage is, That he shall reside upon it four parts in five of the year: There is such a Clause in the Stat. of 30 Car. 2. But the Author ought likewise to have considered, that by the Act of 1 Jac. 2. The Rector is to have a House built at the charge of the Parish.  
And be it further enacted, That the said Commissioners, or any Seven of them, shall within thirty Days after their Constitution make, or cause to be made an estimate in Writing under the Hands of some sufficient Person or Persons, qualified for the same, of the Charge of Building and Finishing the said Church and Steeple, and a House for the Rector, etc. and equally Assess, and cause the said to be Assessed and Levied, etc. So that Provision is made for the Building, as of a Church, so of a Parsonage-house at the Charge of the Parish. And since there cannot be Legal Residence without a Parsonage or Vicaridge-house, the Duty o● Residence enjoined by the Act, cannot be supposed to take place till there be a House built for the Rector to reside in: Till then, not being obliged to Residence, his living is not inconsistent with his Fellowship, according to the Authors own Interpretation of the Statutes. Involuntary Nonresidence, is not Nonresidence within the Stat. of Hen. 8. or 13. Eliz. as when a Parson is absent by reason of an Inhibition from the Bishop. And consequently, Dr. H's Nonresidence not being voluntary, cannot be a Breach of the Proviso in the late Statute. The Law is very clear, 
Moor, 447 Num. 609.  That when there is no Parsonage-house upon the Glebe, the Incumbent is excused for Nonresidence till there be one; Godolph. Repertor. Ecclesiasticum pag. 319, 320. Num. 9 and so it was resolved, Co. 6. Rept. in Butler and Goodale's Case. And in this Case the Parish being to build the Parsonage-house, there is no Default nor Lachess in the Doctor, which might have been imputed to him, if himself were by the Law to build it. Now the late Statute cannot be supposed to enjoin any other Residence than the Law requires; and consequently, not till there be a House built to reside in. For the end of the Law in obliging Parsons to Residence, is maintaining of Hospitality, and preventing Dilapidations, as well as serving the Cure; neither of which can be performed where there is not a Parsonage-house to live in  
So that upon the whole matter, Dr. H's accepting of St. Ann's Living, is not a Session within the Statute de Promotione, etc. because it is not a Benefice taxed in the King's Books at 8 l. per Annum.  
Nor is it within the first Clause, because it is not Obsequium, Officium, nor Exercitium, within the meaning of that Clause.  
Nor, if it were, is he obliged to be Absent from the College by reason of it, till the Parsonage-house be built, because the Proviso in the Statute cannot take place, but from that time.  
What follows, is either Raillery, or a plain Justification of the Doctor, in resigning his former Living about eight or ten years ago. For if, as he acknowledges, he kept himself therein to the Letter of the Statute, than he did not Elude, but fully comply with the Design of the Legislator; which was, that his Statutes should be observed in the plain, literal Sense; and that if he did not like his Preferment, he should have Liberty to Resign it within that time, and keep his Fellowship, which was accordingly done, sine fraude ulla & absque pensione aliqua.  
This Remark, I shall only add, (though the Cause needs it not) That Grants of Privileges, as well as Pardons and Restitutions, are always to be taken in the most benign and beneficial Sense; but according to the Interpretation that this Gentleman would put upon the Statutes, the privilege in Question would dwindle into just nothing at all; and consequently, this Gentleman does very well defend the Privileges of the University, which yet he once Swore to maintain.  
Mr. Vivian's Case has little in it. His Right to his Fellowship, depends upon his Election into Mr. Colmer's place, who having been statutably expelled, as we insist, and hope we have proved, Mr. Vivian was duly Elected into it.  
The Deprivation of the Rector is the next and last thing to be considered.  

P. 36.  The Author tells us, The Visitor resolved to confine himself strictly to the methods which the Statutes direct in the Deprivation of a Rector. A good Resolution! but how far the Bishop deviated from it, may appear in these following Particulars.  
1. Whereas by the Statutes, the Consent of Four of the Seven Signior Fellows, is necessary to the Deprivation of a Rector, his Lordship took upon him to Suspend all the Seven but Two, that he might incapacitate them to descent from his design to Deprive him. Which is the more apparent by this, That the Rector was deprived for Contumacy in not appearing at, and owning him as having a Right then to Visit; which if it were a Crime, the rest of the Fellows, who opposed and protested against his Visitation, were equally guilty, and yet they are only Suspended. I say, The Rector was deprived for Contumacy, because no other cause of Deprivation is alleged in the Sentence, a few other Bombast-words being only mentioned in a Parenthesis, and supposed to express the cause of his Contumacious Absence.  
2. He takes in Mr. Colmer, who had been expelled, and whose Expulsion occasioned all this trouble, to be one of the Seven Seniors, who were to sit in Judgement upon the Rector that Expelled him.  
3. To make it yet more Statutable, he takes in Four more of the Juniors, (who were Registered by the Rector, as obnoxious to Expulsion) and by their Votes, (the two Seniors of the Seven dissenting, and other two being present in the Hall, and not asked their Consent) he proceeded to pass Sentence of Deprivation against the Rector. And this exactness was observed (says the Author) because the Statute expressly requires the Consent of four, E septem maxime senioribus tunc in Vniversitate presentibus.  
No, this exactness was declined, because if the Visitor had confined himself to the Statutes, he could not have compassed the Rector's Deprivation, because he could not have the Majority of the Seniors of his side; and therefore it was necessary for him to lay them aside, whereby he deprived the Rector of the benefit of having his proper Judges.  
So that the Objection remains: They that did consent, were not Four of the Seven maximè seniores. But that's all one: The Bishop was satisfied, that the Statutes were sufficiently observed in the concurrence of those that subscribed to the Deprivation, though not the Seniors. If the Bishop were satisfied, all's well.. The Reasons of the Bishop's satisfaction, have been answered already.  
But supposing there had not been these Irregularities in the Manner and Method of his Deprivation, what was he deprived for? Why, the Sentence expresses it, Propter ejus manifestam & multiplicem contumaciam, & circumstantiis variis aggravatam in non submittendo se Visitationi nostrae Ordinariae, sed contumacitèr se absentantem, etc. So that he was deprived for Contumacy. And herein the Bishop confined himself strictly to the Statutes, because among all the Causes mentioned in the Statute, Propter quas causas Rector privari Officio debeat, Contumacy is not reckoned up as one. Nor if it had, can the Rector's non-appearance in the Case in question be reputed a contumacious absence, because he insisted upon it as a Right not to appear. Nor was it his own single Act, but that of the College, the Protestation having been tendered under the Seal of the College.  
The Rector having been thus Illegally deprived, and his Excommunication, whereby the Visitor enforced his Sentence, having by the Court of Kings-Bench been declared to have been pronounced Illegally, let the New pretended Rector, at his peril, make use of any violent methods to gain Possession. To legal Remedies, if he thinks he has any, the Law is open; which whether it be of his side or no, neither the Visitor, nor Civilians, nor his own Set of Junior Fellows, are to be Judges.  
Thus we have gone through the merits of the Controversy now depending between the Bishop of Exeter and the Rector and Senior Fellows of Exeter-College; and it is hoped, that notwithstanding the vain Allegations, and mistaken Inferences of the Author of the Account, it is plainly proved, That Mr. Colmer was lawfully expelled both the first and the second time; That he could not by the Statutes Appeal any where; That the Visitor had no Right to receive his Appeal, as Visitor, by the Statutes of the College; and that, as Ordinary, he had no Right either to receive the Appeal, or to do any thing else relating to the College, or any Member of it; That Dr. Masters his coming was a Visitation within the intention of the Statutes; and therefore that the Bishop could not Visit again till five years were expired; That being opposed in his second Visitation, by those without whose concurrence he could not exert the Power of a Visitor, he ought not to have proceeded, till that Controversy had been settled; That he had no Authority to suspend any of the Fellows; That the avoidance of Dr. H.'s place, was Illegal, both as to Matter and Form; and the Rector's Deprivation no better.    


Copies of Mr. Colmer's Appeal, of the several Protestations of the College, both against the receiving it, and against the Bishop's Second Visitation; and some Petitions to, and Orders of Council relating to this Cause, are here inserted, and are as followeth:  
IN Dei Nomine Amen! Coram vobis Notario Publico publicâque & Authenticâ Personâ ac testibus fide dignis hic praesentibus, Ego Jacobus Colmer Collegii Exoniensis infrà Vniversitatem Oxon. A. M. Dico, allego & in his scriptis animo appellandi deque Nullitatibus, iniquitatibus & injustitiis omnibus & singulis infrà scriptis aequè principaliter querelando omnibus melioribus viâ, modo & juris formâ quibus possim efficaciùs aut debeo, & ad omnem & quemcunque juris effectum exindè quovismodo sequi valentem, Quod licet inter caetera In Statutis Collegii Exoniensis praedicti specialiter Statutum, provisum & ordinatum est in Rubricâ De Causis propter quas Scholares privari debeant in hâc quae sequitur verborum formâ aut consimili in effectu, viz. [Quod si quis Scholarium vel Electorum, Adulterii, Incontinentiae, Haeresis pertinacis, Homidicii voluntarii, Perjurii manifesti, crebrae Ebrietatis, alteriusve Publicae Turpitudinis coram Rectore, Sub-Rectore, Decano & quinque aliis Scholaribus maxime Senioribus vel majore parte eorundem, cum dicti Rectoris consensu, Legitime Convictus fuerit ipsum, perpetuo Exclusum & privatum ipso facto à Dicto Collegio nullâ aliâ monitione praemissâ virtute praesentis Statuti decernimus.] Nihilominus Arthurus Bury, S. T. P. & Collegii Exoniensis suprà dicti Rector, Georgius Verman, S. T. Bacc. Sub-Rector, Ezra Cleaveland, A. M. Decanus, Thomas Lethbridge, S. T. B. Richardus Hutchins, S. T. B. Benjaminus Archer, S.T.B. Samuel Adams, A. M. Philippus Thorn, A.M. quinque socii maxime Seniores in dicto Collegio aut eorum saltem pars major, in omnibus minus justè, nulliter, & iniquè (eorum Reverentiâ semper saluâ) pracedentes, objecto mihi Incontinentiae Reatu cum quadam Annâ— anciliâ nuper puerpera nullis autem editis desuper Probationibus saltem legitimis aut de jure sufficientibus de facto quantum in illis fuit cum de jure non potuerint, me Jacobum Colmer nullatenus legitimè Convictum à Dicto Collegio excluserunt & amoverunt. Vnde ego antedictus Jacobus Colmer, Sentiens me ex praemissis nullitatibus & injustitiis enormiter laedi & praegravari ab eisdem & eorum quolibet ad Reverendissimum in Christo Patrem ac Dominum, Dominum Jonathanem Divinâ permissione Exoniensem Episcopum & Collegii Exoniensis memorati Visitatorem Legitimum Appello, ac jus & justitiam peto; protestando quod libenter appellassem, in praesentiâ dicti Rectoris, sub-Rectoris, Decani & quinque sociorum praedictorum maximè Seniorum, si hoc commodè facere potuissem; protestorque insuper de emendando, corrigendo, & reformando hanc meam Appellationem & Querelam juxtà Juris-peritorum consilia, prout Moris est & Juris: Super quibus peto Instrumentum publicum mihi confici.  
Ben. Cooper Notarii Publici.  
Lecta erat retrò scripta Appellatio per Magistrum Jacobum Colmer A. M. in Cubiculo Magistri Thomae Wood L. L. Bacc. apud Collegium Novum in Universitate Oxon 24 Die Octobris inter horas Secundam & Tertiam pomerid. Anno Domini 1689. coram me Roberto Loggan Notario Publico ac testibus ad hoc specialiter rogatis & requisitis  
Lecta Haec Appellatio in praesentia, Tho. Wood Ard. Adderley.  
Ità Testor  
Robertus Loggan Notarius Publicus Auctoritate Regiâ ad hoc specialiter rogatus & requisitus.  
Exhibit' &c. 25 die Martii 1690. per Thomam Wood L L. Bac. in Visitatione per Venerabilem Virum Edvard. Master L L. Doctorem Domini Episcopi Exon. Commissarium habita pro Copia vera In praesentia mei   

In Visitatione Colleg. Exon. 25ᵒ. die Martii, An. Dom. 1690. Per Venerabilem Virum D. Edvardum Master, L. L. Doctorem, Reverendi admodum in Christo Patris Domini Jonathanis Exon Episcopi, ejusdem Coll. Visitatoris Commissarium habitâ, Ad Appellationem Jacobi Colmer, A. M. Collegii praedicti nuper Scholaris Responsio, sive Protestatio Arthuri Bury ejusdem Collegii Rectoris, & septem Scholarium maxime Seniorum aut saltem majoris partis eorundem.  
NOS Rector & Scholares praedicti ad Libertates Collegii nostri pro Viribus defendendas juramento obligati Protestamur non licere Nobis praefato Reverendo Visitatoris Commissario è Tribunali illud exigenti amotionis Magistri Colmer rationem reddere, idque ob has potissimum rationes.  
I. Quia per juramentum à quolibet Scholari in Admissione suâ praestitum Cavetur ne quis Appellationem ullam faciat, si per Rectorem, aut in hujusmodi interesse habentes amoveatur.  
II. Quia istaec Appellatio facta est ad Judicem non competentem, Cum per Statuta nostra in qualibet lite inter Rectorem & Socios, ubi querelae locus fuerit, Sententiae & Judicio D. Cancellarii Oxoniensis, si in Vniversitate tunc fuerit, & illo absente, Vicecancellarii parendum sit. Et secundum eam formam Lites per Vicecancellarium, non autem per Episcopum Exon. terminatas fuisse è Registro nostro patet.  
Protestamur insuper Visitationem sub istiusmodi formâ, quâ nunc proceditur, procedere non oportere; scilicet, apertis foribus, admissa turbâ caeteroque cum strepitu judiciali.  
I. Quia ideo potestas Visitandi conceditur, ut liceat Reverendo Visitatori, aut ejus Commissario, de delictis inquirere, eademque corrigere: non autem liceat cuiquam qui accusatus vel detectus fuerit, petere ut Copia compertorum, vel Nomina detegentium sibi exponantur; sed statim personaliter Respondere & Correctionem subire omnes delinquentes tenentur.  
II. Cavetur nè sumptus Visitationis summam adeo exiguam excedat ut Officiariis inde pro laboribus suis compensatio exhiberi non possit.  
III. Quia non Sententiá è Tribunali latâ, sed post finitam Visitationem scriptis Rectori traditis, & nè id quidem, nisi cum prae brevitate temporum Correctio ore tenus fieri non potest, Corrigenda Rectori demandantur.  
Supplicamus proinde Venerabili Commissario, ne in futuris Visitationibus adeo publicè procedatur, nec in praesenti quicquam Statuatur in hac Causa Appellationis, Protestants irritum fore quicquid contra Acta nostra Statutum fuerit.  
Concordat cum Originali factâ debitâ Collatione, per me Ben. Cooper, Notar. Publ. 

A. Bury, Rector.  
Geo. Verman, Sub-Rector.  
Tho. Lethbridge.  
Ben. Archer.  
Sam. Adams.  
Phil. Thorne.    
Die Martis 25. viz. Die Mensis Martii, Anno Domini 1690. inter horas secundam & quintam pomeridianas ejusdem diei, in Camera communi Colgii Exon. coram Venerabili Viro Edvardo Master, L. L. Doctore, etc. Reverendus Vir Arthurus Bury, Sacrae Theologiae Professor. & Collegii praedicti Rector, Protestationem pagina superiori descriptam recitavit, & nomine tam suo quam eorum Scholarium, quorum Nomina suscripta sunt admitti petiit, eandemque praefatus Edvardus Master admisit, & Actorum in hac parte scribae custodiendam tradidit.  
In praesentia mei, Ben. Cooper, Not. Publ.   

Saluâ Protestatione nostrâ nos Rector & Scholares Collegii Exoniensis è septem Senioribus pars major Jacobum Colmer, A. M. incontinentiae legitime convictum his praecipuè probationibus censuimus.  
I. PRaedictum Magistrum Colmer diversarum Puellarum pudicitias attentasse comperimus.  
II. Quod A. Sparrow nondum impraegnationis suspecta questa sit, se à Magistro Colmer perditam, quod debito inde intervallo, appropinquante puerperio, professa sit, se ab eodem impraegnatam à diversis testibus indicatum; quae testimonia per coincidentiam se mutuo ita confirmarunt, ut de veritate dubitandum non videretur.  
cum praedicto Magistro Colmer dies dictus esset, A. Sparrow nondum satis valida, abscondita est, ne ex ejus examinatione eliceretur Veritas.  
Post latam Sententiam Magister Colmer professus est non habere se quod de Judicibus suis quereretur; se enim ex eisdem testimoniis quemlibet alium condemnaturum, sed in testes totam culpam rejecit.  
Tandem A. Sparrow mirâ providentiâ Londini reperta, & per Juramentum examinata, dixit se ab omnibus aliis viris incorruptam, à solo Magistro Colmer compressam & impraegnatam.   

In Visitatione Collegii Exon 22ᵒ. die Martii An. Dom. 1689/90. Per Venerabilem virum D. Edu. Master L L. Doctorem Reverendi admodum in Christo Patris Jonathanis Exon. Episcopi ejusdem Collegii Visitatoris Commissarium habita ad Appellationem Jacobi Colmer A. M. Responsio & Protestatio Arth. Bury S. T. P. ejusdem Collegii Rectoris & Septem è Scholaribus maximè Senioribus aut saltem majoris partis eorundem domi existentium.  
NOS Rector & Scholares praedicti ad Libertates hujus Collegii pro Viribas nostris defendendas juramento obligati, Protestamur, non licere Nobis de Expulsione praedicti Magistri Colmer rationem praefato Reverendi Patris praedicti Commissario reddere ob rationes sequentes.  
I. Per juramentum ab omnibus Scholaribus in Admissione suâ praestitum Cavetur ne quam Appellationem aut Querelam faciat si per Rectorem aut in ejusmodi interesse habentes expellatur. Quumque Rector eidem juramento teneatur, irrita Statuitur omnimoda illius Appellatio.  
II. Quia in Statutis nostris Legitima Causa idem significat ac Rationabilis Causa, & penes Nos est judicare quae nam Causa pro tali habenda sit, ut patet è Rubrica de Ordinationibus legendis cum alia Rubrica de qualitate, & Officio Rectoris collatâ.  
III. Quia alius querelarum Arbiter Statuitur, nempe D. Cancellarius Vniversitatis Oxon. si in Vniversitate tunc fuerit, & illo absente Vicè-Cancellarius, ut ex juramento Rectoris patet.  
IV. Quia post latam Sententiam Mr. Colmer confessus est, se ex eisdem probationibus judicaturum fuisse quemlibet alium satis convictum; & licentiam à Rectore petiit ut in aliud Collegium admitteretur.  
Proinde humiliter à Venerabili Commssario petimus, ut ad alia Visitationis negotia procedat, relictis Nobis Privilegiis nostris hac ex parte intemeratis.  


A. Bury Rector.  
Geo. Verman Sub Rector.  
Tho. Lethbridge.  
Phil. Thorne.     

A Protestation of the Rector and Senior Fellows, against the Bishop's Visitation.  
IN Dei nomine, Amen. Coram vobis Reverendo in Christo Patre ac Domino, Domino Jonathan ' permissione Divina Exon ' Episcopo, ac Patrono & Visitatori Collegii Exon ' infra Universitatem Oxon Nos Rector & Scholares Collegii Exon. praedict' cum omni qua debet Reverentia dicimus, allegamus & in his Scriptis ad omnem Juris effectum qui exinde sequi potest aut poterit, atque omnibus via, modo & juris forma melioribus quibus melius & efficacius de jure possumus & debemus animo Protestandi proponimus. Quod cum per Literas Vestras Citatoriales geren. Dat. decimo sexto dei Mensis Maii, Anno Domini 1690. Nobis intimari feceritis, Quod Vos Collegium hoc decimo sexto Die Instantis Mensis Junii inter Horas nonam & undecimam antemeridianas ejusdem diei Visitare decreveritis in hunc tenorem; viz. Jonathan Providentiâ Divinâ Exon. Episcopus Collegii Exoniensis in Academia Oxon. Patronus & Visitator, Dilectis Nobis in Christo Venerabili Viro Arthuro Bury, Sacrae Theologiae Professori, Collegii Exoniensis in Academia Oxoniensi praedict' Rectori, & ejusdem Collegii Subrectori pro tempore existenti Salutem, Gratiam & Benedictionem. Quum Nos pro debita Statutorum dicti Collegii Observatione, Ad honorem Dei, & animarum Salutem Collegium praedictum (favente Deo) propediem Visitare proponimus & intendimus: Vobis igitur conjunctim & divisim committimus & firmiter injungendo Mandamus; Quatenus moneatis & citetis, seu moneri & citari faciatis peremptoriè Omnes & Singulos dicti Collegii Socios, Scholares & Ministros quoscunque quocunque nomine censeantur (quos Nos etiam tenore praesentium sic monemus) Quod ipsi cum vobis compareant, & quilibet eorum compareat coram Nobis, aut Vicario nostro in Spiritualibus Generali sive Commissario vel Commissariis nostris, In Capella dicti Collegii Die Lunae, viz. Decimo Sexto Die Mensis Junii prox. futur. inter horas nonam & undecimam antemeridianas ejusdem diei, Visitationem nostram hujusmodi subitur' & juri per omnia paritur. Et quid in praemissis feceritis Nos dictis Die & loco una cum praesentibus debite Certificetis. In Cujus rei testimonium sigillum nostrum Episcopale praesentibus apponi fecimus. Dat. in Palatio nostro Exon. decimo sexto die Mensis Maii, Anno Dom. 1690. Nostraeque Consecrationis Anno quinto, & Translationis Secundo.  
Cumque vi cujusdam Commissionis Venerabili Viro Edvardo Master, L. L. Doctori Commissario Vestro in hac parte constituto concessae, praedictus Edvardus Master die Martii Vicesimo secundo proximè Elaps. ad Collegium Exon. praedict. accesserit, idemque Visitaverit; cumque per Statuta hujus Collegii Exon praedict. ad quae observanda juramento astringimur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Liceat Domino Episcopo Exoniensi qui pro tempore fuerit, & nulli alii, nec aliis, quoties per Rectorem dicti Collegii, & in ejus absentia Subrectorem & quatuor alios ad minus ex septem maximè Senioribus Scholaribus fuerit requisitus; nec non absque requisitione ulla de quinquennio in quinquennium, Semel, ad dictum Collegium per se, vel per suum Commissarium, quem duxerit deputandum liberè accedere, etc. nec aliter neque alio modo. Cumque Spatium quinquennii minimè affluxerit, juxta Statuta praedicta, citra Visitationem (ut praefertur) in hoc Collegio Oxoniensi per dictum Venerabilem Virum Edvardum Master Commissarium Vestrum in hac parte constitutum, obitam. Quamobrem primo & ante omnia protestamur de non consentiendo in Vestram Visitationem, (Reverende Pater ac Domine) nobis, sic ut praefertur, intimatam, hac sola ratione ducti, ne quid fiat, quantum in Nobis est, in praejudicium Libertatum, Jurium, Privilegiorum & Statutorum dicti Collegii, ad quae omnia servanda juramenti Vinculo omnes & singuli tenemur. In oujus rei Testimonium Sigillum nostrum Commune praesentibus apposuimus. Datum decimo tertio Die Mensis Junii, Anno Dom. 1690.  
Concordat cum Originali facta debita Collatione, per Me Ben. Cooper, Notarium publicum.  
Die Lunae 16. viz. Die Mensis Junii Anno Dom. 1690. Inter horas 10 & 11. antemeridianas ejusdem diei infra Collegium Exon. praedict. Coram Reverendo in Christo Patre ac Dom. Dom. Jonathan permissione Divinâ Exon. Episcopo ac ejusdem Collegii Patrono & Visitatore, Reverendus Vir Arthurus Bury S. Theol. Professor & Rector Collegii Exon. praedict. (unà cum Sociis dicti Collegii) cum omni quâ debuit Reverentiâ comparuit; & eidem Reverendo in Christo Patri Protestationem supra scriptam Rectoris & Scholarium Coll. Exon. praedict. in Pergamenâ exaratam, & communi Sigillo dicti Collegii sigillatam, contra praetensam Visitationem Reverendi Patris praedict. nuper eis intimatam, praesentavit; sed Domino Episcopo Exon. dictam Protestationem admittere recusante, praefatus Reverendus Vir Dr. Bury dictam Protestationem mihi Ben. Cooper Notario Publico palam legendam tradidit, quam Dominus Episcopus Exon. è manibus meis inter legendum eripuit, quo minus dictam Protestationem perlegere potuerim  
Acta fuerunt haec omnia prout suprascribuntur, In presentia Mei Ben. Cooper, Notarii Publici.   

In Dei nomine Amen. Coram vobis Reverendo in Christo Patre ac Dom. Dom. jonathan permissione Divinâ Exon Episcopo ac Patrono & Visitatore Collegii Exon infra Vniversitatem Oxon. Nos Rector & Scholares Collegii Exon praedict. cum omni quá debet Reverentia dicimus allegamus & his Scriptis ad omnem juris effectum qui exinde sequi potest aut poterit, atque omnibus vià modo & juris formâ melioribus quibus melius & efficacius de jure possumus & dobemus animo protestandi proponimus; Quod cum per Literas vestras Citatoriales gerent. Dat. Vicesimo primo Die Mensis Julii Anno Dom. Millesimo Sexcentesimo Nonagesimo, Nobis intimari feceritis quod Vos Collegium hoc Die Jovis, viz. Vicesimo Quarto Die instantis Mensis Julii inter horas Septimam & Duodecimam ante meridiem ejusdem Dici Visitare decreverìtis in hunc tenorem (viz.) jonathan permissione Divina Dioec' Exon ' Episcopus & Collegii Exon in Universitate Oxon ' Patronus, & Visitator Ordinarius. Cum Nos Collegium Exon ' praedict' die hor' & loco subscript' juxta Statuta dict. ' Collegii (Deo favent' altissimo) tam in Capite quam in Membris Visitare intenderimus & Statuerimus. Vobis igitur Petro Cox & Andreae Skinner Litteratis Mandatar' nostris a nobis in hac parte constitut' committimus ac firmiter injungendo mandamus quatenus Citetis seu citari faciatis peremptorie. Venerabilem Virum Arthurum Bury Sacrae Theologiae Professorem Collegii Exon praedict' Rectorem, Georgium Verman, Sacrae Theologiae Bacc' Ejusdem Collegii Sub-Rectorem, Johannem Hearn, Sacrae Theologiae Professorem, Thomam Lethbridge, Ricardum Hutchins, & Benjaminum Archer, Sacrae Theologiae Bacc', Samuelem Adams, Robertum Ratcliff, Ezram Cleeveland, Gulielmum Read, Johannem Harris, Philippum Thorne, Jacobum Colmer, Johannem Bagnell, Henricum Maundrell, Johannem Crab, & Thomam Vivian, in Artibus respectiuè Magistros, Johannem Bonamy, & Thomam Kingston, in Artibus Bacc', Franciscum Webber, Henricum Levett, Henricum Northcote, Henricum Huthnance dicti Collegii Exon ' respectivè Scholares, Johannem Snell, ejusdem Collegii Electum, Gulielmum Newe Promum, Richardum Hedges Coquum, Henricum Edwards Obsonatorem, & Richardum Parker, Bibl. Lectorem dict' Collegii Ministros. Ac preterea famulos quoscunque ejusdem Collegii personaliter si ita apprehendi seu citari poterint, alioquin per publicum Citationis Edictum presentibus (viz.) super valvis seu foribus exterioribus Collegii Exon ' predict' affixis & ibidem aliquandiu dimissis & relictis aliisque mediis viis ac modis quibuscunque legitimis ac de jure permissis ita quod Citatio hujusmodi ad aures & notitiam eorum saltem de verisimili pervenire poterit. Quos Nos etiam tenore praesentium sic citamus quod compareant & eorum quilibet compareat coram nobis in Aula communi dicti Collegii die Jovis (viz.) Vicesimo quarto die Julii prox' sequen' inter horas septimam & Duodecimam ante Meridiem ejusdem Diei Visitationem nostram Ordinariam quam tunc & ibidem quoad eos celebrare & Exercere proponimus & intendimus juxta juris in ea parte exigentiam subitur' & ad Interrogatoria recipiend. iisdem respondend. ad Detegend ' objici vidend' ad probationes (si opus fuerit) de super fieri etiam vidend. ad defensiones si quas habuerint quatenus Statuta admittunt faciend. ad poenas juxta cujusque demerita (si opus fuerit) infligi vidend' singulis Denique Sessionibus ad interessend. dicta Visitatione nostrâ pendent. Ulteriusque factur' & receptur' quod justum fuerit in hac parte. Intimamus in super omnibus & singulis superiùs Citatis, Quod sive ipsi seu eorum aliquis comparuerint sive non in praemissis procedere intendimus quatenus rerum ratio patiatur absentiis seu potius Contumaciis ipsorum sic (ut praemittitur) Citatorum & Intimatorum in aliquo non obstan. Et quid in praemissis feceritis nos dictis die boris & loco debite Certificetis Dat' sub Sigillo nostro Episcopali Vicesimo primo die Mensis Julii An. Dom. Millesimo Sexcentesimo Nonagesimo.  
Cumque vi cujusdam Commissionis Venerabili Viro Edvardo Master LL. Doctori Commissario vestro in hac parte Constituto concessae, praedictus Edvardus Master die Martii Vicesimo secundo proximè elapsi ad Collegium Exon ' praedict' accesserit idemque visitaverit; Cumque per Statuta hujus Collegii Exon ' praedict', ad quae observanda juramento astringimur; Liceat Domino Episcopo Exoniensi, qui pro tempore fuerit, & nulli alii, nec aliis, quoties per Rectorem dicti Collegii, & in ejus absentia Sub-Rectorem & quatuor alios ad minus ex septem maximè Senioribus Scholaribus fuerit requisitus, nec non absque requisitione ullâ, de quinquennio in quinquennium, semel, ad dictum Collegium, per se, vel per suum Commissarium, quem duxerit deputandum, libere accedere, etc. nec aliter neque alio modo; cumque Spatium Quinquennii minimè effluxerit, juxta Statuta praedicta, citra Visitationem (ut praefertur) in hoc Collegio Exoniensi per dictum Venerabilem Virum Edvardum Master Commissarium vestrum in hac parte constitutum, obitam; Quamobrem primo & ante omnia protestamur de non consentiendo in vestram Visitationem (Reverende Pater ac Domine) nobis sic (ut praefertur) intimatam, hac solâ ratione ducti, ne quid fiat, quantum in nobis est, in praejudicium Libertatum Jurium, Privilegiorum & Statutorum dicti Collegii, ad quae omnia servanda Juramenti vinculo omnes & singuli tenemur. In cujus rei testimonium Sigillum nostrum commune praesentibus apposuimus. Datum Vicesimo tertio die Mensis Julii Anno Dom. Millesimo Sexcentesimo Nonagesimo.  
Concordat cum Originali facta debitâ Collatione per Me, Ben. Cooper, Notarium Publicum.   

The Answer of the Rector and Fellows of Exeter College in Oxon to the Petition of the Right Reverend Father in God Jonathan Lord Bishop of Exeter. Exhibited to the King and Queens most Excellent Majesties.  
THese Respondants do admit that the Bishop of Exeter for the time being, is by the Statutes of the said College appointed Patron and Ordinary visitor thereof, but these Respondents are advised and do insist that the Visitors power of Visitation, or Exercising any Act of jurisdiction within the College, is not general, nor as often as he pleases, but by the said Statutes is restrained and limited to be but once in five years, and not oftener, unless requested by the Rector or Sub Rector, and four of the seven Signior Fellows. And these Respondents further say, that a certain Fellow of that College being proceeded against before the said Rector and the seven Signior Fellows for incontinence, and for that crime upon conviction Expelled the College in October last, pursuant to the power given to the Rector and said Fellows for that purpose, by the Statutes of the said College, Dr. Edward Master's Chancellor to the Bishop of Exeter, by virtue of a Commission or Power of the said Lord Bishop did in March last, come to the said College, and Exercised Acts of Visitation, and jurisdiction, relating to the said College, and the said Follows Expulsion confining himself to the time and Circumstances prescribed by the Statutes for Visitation, and the said Fellows name being by the aforesaid Commissary inserted into the College Buttery-Book, and he claiming the privileges of a Fellow, notwithstanding such his Expulsion. A fresh Complaint of the same crime of Incontinence with another Woman was made against him, and he Convicted thereof, and as a pretended Fellow again Expelled by the Rector and Major part of the Signior Fellows pursuant to the Statutes of the said College, whereupon application by the said Fellows being again made to his Lordship, his Lordship was pleased by a Citation to signify his pleasure that he intended to visit the College, and thereupon these Respondents being informed that his Lordship was come to Oxford for that purpose, humbly waited on him, to pay him the Respects of the College, but withal signified to his Lordship that that intended Visitation not being requested by the Rector or Sub Rector and four of the Signior Fellows, in regard of the above mentioned Visitation in the Month of March preceding was against the Statutes of the College, and that therefore they could not submit to it, but had drawn up a Protestation under the Common Seal of the College, which Protestation was afterwards tendered to his Lordship and rejected by him, and these Respondents do believe that their Chappel-Doors were kept Locked as they usually were at that time of the day, but these Respondents do deny that they intended any contempt or disobedience towards his Lordship, for whom they have a Dutiful regard as their Visitor, yet what was done by them was merely and only by way of asserting their Legal Rights, and as they conceived and were advised in Observance of their Statutes to which they were all Sworn. The said Rector and Fellows do therefore humbly pray that under their Majesty's gracious Protection, they may quietly enjoy the Rights and Privileges which have been granted to them, by the gracious Charters of their Majesty's Royal Predecessors.   

At the Court of Whitehall the 25th. of June, 1690.  
By the Right Honourable the Lords of their Majesty's most Honourable Privy-Council.  
IN pursuance of an Order of the 19th. instant, the Rector and Fellows of Exeter-Colledge in Oxon, having this day presented to the Board, their Answer to the Petition of the Right Reverend Father in God Jonathan Lord Bishop of Exeter, and the same being read, it was thereupon ordered by their Lordships, that a Copy of the said Answer be given to the Lord Bishop of Exeter, and that the whole matter be heard at this Board on Wednesday the 2d. of July next, when the parties concerned are to give their attendance.  
Jo. Nicholas.   

At the Court at Whitehal the 5th. of July, 1690.  
By the Lords of their Majesty's most Honourable Privy-Council.  
THe matter in difference between the Lord Bishop of Exeter, and the Rector and Fellows of Exeter-Colledge, upon the Petition of the said Lord Bishop, and Answer of the said Rector and Fellows, concerning a Visitation of the said College, having according to Order of the 26th. of June last, been this day heard at the Board, and Counsel learned having been heard on both sides.  
It is Ordered in Council, that the same be Dismissed, as it is hereby Dismissed this Board accordingly.  
William Blathwayt.   

To the Queen's most Excellent Majesty.  
The humble Petition of Arthur Bury Rector, Professor in Divinity, George Verman Sub-Rector, B.D. John Hern Professor in Divinity, Thomas Lethbridge, Benjamin Archer, Samuel adam's Bs. D. Philip Thorn, John Crab, Thomas Vivian, Master of Arts, John Bonony, Tho. Kingston Bachelors of Arts, and Henry Huthnance Fellows of Exeter-Colledge in Oxford, and John Vivian Fellow Elect of the same.  
Humbly showeth  
THat Jonathan Lord Bishop of Exeter having given notice that he intended to Visit the said College on the 24th. of July last three of the Fellows deputed by the Rector and Major part of the Fellows did on that day in the Morning, wait on the said Bishop to acquaint him that as they humbly conceived by the Statutes of their College, his Lordship could not Visit them at that time, being also the rather induced to believe themselves not mistaken in the sense of the Statutes for that after a full hearing before your Majesty's Privy Council, upon that subject the said Bishop's Petition had been lately dismissed. But his Lordship was pleased to send them word that though he expected to meet with Opposition, yet he was resolved to come, and a little after the return of the Fellows, the College gates were broken open by force and violence, by those that took upon them to oppose the College to assist the Bishop's pretence, and a great multitude of rude People rushing in tore down and much abused the said Rector and Fellows; By which means the said Bishop found an entrance into the College, and went into the Hall, and did there hold a pretended Court or Assembly under colour of a Visitation. Whereupon the said Rector and major part of thè Fellows came, and humbly tendered to his Lordship a Protestation under the College Seal against his Proceedings, which they were not suffered to read out. The pretended Court being adjourned to the afternoon, eleven of the Fellows, being your Petitioners, amongst whom are five of the seven Senior Follows of the College, and all the Officers of the College had Sentence of Suspension ab Officio & Beneficio pronounced against them, by or in the presence of the Bishop, and your Petitioner Hernes Fellowship was Unstatutably declared void, and your Petitioner Thomas Kingston was pronounced Excommunicated for having read Prayers in the Chapel after the pretended Suspension of him as Fellow, and the name of your Petitioner John Vivian was ordered to be left out of the College Book as no Fellow: And although by the said Satutes the Rector of the said olledge, if accused of any the Crimes expressed in the said Statute is to be judged by the Visitor, and seven of the most signior Fellows, yet the said Bishop, attended with Seven others, amongst whom was one Mr. Colmer, who then stood expelled the said College for Fornication, Two of the Seven (being the only real Seniors) dissenting, and the others being obnoxious) did pronounce Sentence of Expulsion against the said Rector for certain pretended Crimes, the particulars whereof your Petitioners cannot set forth, having not been able to obtain any authentic Copy of that or other the pretended Sentences or proceeding, though they have endeavoured to procure the same, and the said Bishop did then also pronounce Sentence of Excommunication against the said Rector, in case he should not recede from the College, and deliver up his Charge by the first of this instant August, nor were the Statutes of the College, concerning the Expulsion of the Rector, observed in the said Proceedings.  
Now forasmuch as your Petitioners are advised that the said proceedings and Sentences, are irregular and not well founded, nor warranted in Law, nor justified by the Statutes of the College. Yet nevertheless by means thereof, and other the force and violent disturbances aforesaid your Petitioners are interrupted in their Rights, and the said College put into extreme confusion and disorder, to the great danger, if not of the utter ruin of the same, and the discipline of the Youth therein Educated, but also to the great disturbance of your Majesty's peace, and the quiet of the whole University.  
In tender consideration whereof, and for that your Petitioners are advised that it is their Duty humbly to represent the said proceedings to your Majesties, to whose Royal Pleasure and Prerogative, it appertains to Examine and Determine in matters of this nature,  
Your Petitioners do therefore most humbly pray that your Majesty would be pleased to interpose your Royal Authority, to put some stop to those disorders, and to restore to your Petitioners, and the College, the Peace and Quiet they have before enjoyed, under your Majesty's most happy Reign, and to grant your Petitioners such other Relief in the premises as to Justice and in your Majesty's Royal Wisdom shall be thought meet And they shall Pray, etc.   

A Copy of the Writ directed by the Court of King's Bench to the Bishop of Exeter, upon occasion of the Rector's Excommunication.  
GUlielmus & Maria Dei Gratia Angliae & Scotiae, Franciae & Hiberniae Rex & Regina Fidei defensores, etc. Reverendo in Christo Patri ac Domino Domino Jonathano Exon ' Episcopo salutem cum ostens est nobis in Curia nostra coram nobis apud Westm ' ex parte Arthuri Bury Sacrae Theologiae Professoris, quod cum Colleg ' Exon ' in Universitate Oxon est antiquum Collegium & ad sustentation unius Rector' & vigint' & trium Scholarium in bonâ litteratur & liberis artibus proficiend & studiosor' ibidem confluend' in eisdem instruend' & erudiend' totum in temporalibus & nichil in spiritualibus fundat' & de laica fundatione exist'. Cumque vos praefat' Episcopus qui Visitator esse & quinquennem habere Visitation' ejusdem Collegii clamat' in Visitation' vestram seu alitèr nullam habetis Spiritualem Jurisdictionem de in vel super Rector' sive aliquem vel aliquos Scholar' ejusdem Collegii seu de in vel concernent. eliqua materia clausa sive re tangent' seu spectant ad idem Collegium neque eosdem Rector' & Scholar' seu eorum aliquos sive aliquem per Ecclesiasticas Censur' in aliquo compellere debeatis seu unquam hactenus consuevistis ac licet praedict' Collegium Exon ' in Universitat' Oxon ' & Rector' & Scholar' ejusdem sunt & semper fuissent extra Diocese. vestram & omnem Episcopal' & Ecclesiastic. Jurisdictionem vestram. Tamen vos Episcopus Exon ' permissor' non ignar' machinant. & intendent. eund' Arthurum Bury, qui ad officium Rectoris Collegii praed' rite & legitime elect' & in eod' collocat' & praefect' fuisset, contra debitam legis hujus regni Angliae formam per Ecclesiasticas Censur' praegravare opprimere & fatigare necnon nos exheredare cognitionemque materiae mere laicae & quae ad temporal' cognition' spectat & pertinet ad aliud examen in Cur' Christianitatis trahere, ipsum Arthurum in Curia Christianitatis coram vobis pretextu Visitation' vestr' ejusdem Collegii traxistis in placit ' & in ipsum Arthurum pretextu contumaciae in non parendo mandat' vestris in dict' Visitatione vestr' sententiam excommunication' fulminaveritis & ei diversa gravam & oppression' per citation' & ali' censur' Ecclesiasticas ex causa praedict' diversi modo intuleritis & in dies infer intulitis, In lesion' Coron' & dignitat' nostrar ' ac prefat' Arthuri damnum non modicum & gravamen & prejudicium manifest ac contra formam legis terrae hujus regni nostrae Angliae, Nos Jura dictae coronae nostrae ac legem & consuetud ' perdict' prout per vinculum Juram astringimur manutenere volent nostrosque ligeos suspencion contra easdem violari nolent, vobis mandamus ac firmit' injungendo prohibemus ne placit' coram vobis versus praedict' Arthurum super permiss. teneatis, nec quicquam in ea parte per Censuras Ecclesiasticas attentari presumatis seu per alios attentari faciatis quae in ipsius Arthuri ac in nostri damn' & prejudicium seu legum & consuetudinem regni nostri Angli derogation' sieve contempt' cedere valeat quovismodo, & omnia quae per vos in ea parte minus rite attent' fuerint sine dilatione revocari faciatis sub violator' legum nostarum penam periculo incurrendi, Ipsumque Arthurum si quam sentent' in eum ea occasione fulumina veritis penit. absolvatis ab eadem, etc. J. Holt mil. apud Westm' xxviii. die Novembris, Anno regni nostri secundo.  
Edward Jevon of London, Gent. maketh Oath, That he this Deponent did on the ninth day of this Instant December 1690. serve the now Bishop of Exeter with their Majesties Writ of Prohibition by leaving with him the said Writ under the Seal of Their Majesty's Court of Kings-Bench a Copy of which Writ is above written.  
Jur ' 22. die Decemb. 1690. Coram Edw. Jevon.  
The same Writ was served at the Suit of Sir K. mutatis mutandis.   
FINIS.   


At the Court at Whitehal the 15th. of August, 1690.  
Present: The Queens most Excellent Majesty in Council.  
WHereas it hath been Represented to Her Majesty in Council, that there hath lately happened a disturbance in Exeter-Colledge in Oxford which may endanger the Peace in the University; Her Majesty in Council, is pleased to order that Doctor Jonathan Edward's, Vicechancellor of the said University, do take special care for keeping of the Peace in the said University, and particularly in that College.  
Rich. Colinge.   

At the Court at Whitehal the 15th. of August, 1690.  
Present: The Queens most Excellent Majesty in Council.  
UPon Reading the Petition of Arthur Bury Rector, Professor in Divinity, George Verman, Sub-Rector, John Hern, Thomas Lethbridge, Benjamin Archer, Samuel adam's, Philip Thorn, John Crab, Thomas Vivian, John Bonany, Thomas Kingston, and Henry Huthnance Fellows of Exeter-Colledge in Oxford, and John Vivian Fellow Elect of the same, concerning some proceedings and sentences of the Right Reverend Father in God Jonathan Lord Bishop of Exeter relating to the said College; It is this day ordered by Her Majesty in Council, that the Lord Bishop of Exeter do return his Answer in writing to this Board to the said Petition annexed, with all convedient speed. Whereupon this Board will appoint a day for the hearing thereof.  
Rich. Colinge.   

A Copy of the Writ directed by the Court of King's Bench to the Bishop of Exeter, upon occasion of the Rector's Excommunication.  
GUlielmus & Maria Dei Gratia Angliae, Scotiae, Franciae & Hiberniae Rex & Regina Fidei defensores, etc. Reverendo in Christo Patri ac Domino Domino Jonathano Exon ' Episcopo salutem cum ostens' est nobis in Curia nostra coram nobis apud Westm ' ex parte Arthuri Bury Sacrae Theologiae Professoris, quod cum Colleg ' Exon ' in Universitate Oxon ' est antiquum Collegium & ad sustentation unius Rector' & vigint' & trium Scholarium in bonâ litteratur' & liberis artibus proficiend' & studiosor' ibidem confluend' in eisdem instruend' & erudiend' totum in temporalibus & nichil in spiritualibus fundat' & de laica fundatione exist'. Cumque vos praefat' Episcopus qui Visitator esse & quinquennem habere Visitation' ejusdem Collegii clamat' in Visitation' vestra, seu alitèr nullam habetis Spiritualem Jurisdictionem de in vel super Rector' sive aliquem vel aliquos Scholar' ejusdem Collegii, seu de in vel concernent. aliqua materia clausa sive re tangent' seu spectant ad idem Collegium neque eosdem Rector' & Scholar' seu eorum aliquos sive aliquem per Ecclesiasticas Censur' in aliquo compellere debeatis seu unquam hactenus consuevistis, ac licet praedict' Collegium Exon ' in Universitat' Oxon ' & Rector' & Scholar' ejusdem sunt & semper fuissent extra Diocese. vestram & omnem Episcopal' & Ecclesiastic. Jurisdictionem vestram. Tamen vos Episcopus Exon ' permissor' non ignar' machinant. & intendent. eund' Arthurum Bury, qui ad officium Rectoris Collegii praed' rite & legitime elect' & in eod' collocat' & praefect' fuisset, contra debitam legis hujus regni Angliae formam per Ecclesiasticas Censur' praegravare opprimere & fatigare, necnon nos exheredare cognitionemque materiae mere laicae & quae ad temporal' cognition' spectat & pertinet ad aliud examen in Cur' Christianitatis trahere, ipsum Arthurum in Curia Christianitatis coram vobis pretextu Visitation' vestr' ejusdem Collegii traxistis in placit ' & in ipsum Arthurum pretextu contumaciae in non parendo mandat' vestris in dict' Visitatione vestr' sententiam excommunication' fulminaveritis & ei diversa gravam' & oppression' per citation' & ali' censur' Ecclesiasticas ex causa praedict' diversi modo intuleritis & in dies infer intulitis, In lesion' Coron' & dignitat' nostrar ' ac prefat' Arthuri damnum non modicum & gravamen & prejudicium manifest' ac contra formam legis terrae hujus regni nostrae Angliae, Nos Jura dictae coronae nostrae ac legem & consuetud' superdict' prout per vinculum Juram' astringimur, manutenere volent' nostrosque ligeos suspencion contra easdem violari nolent', vobis mandamus ac firmit' injungendo prohibemus ne placit' coram vobis versus praedict' Arthurum super permiss. teneatis, nec quicquam in ea parte per Censuras Ecclesiasticas attentari presumatis seu per alios attentari faciatis quae in ipsius Arthuri ac in nostri damn' & prejudicium seu legum & consuetudinum regni nostri Angliae derogation' sieve contempt' cedere valeat quovismodo, & omnia quae per vos in ea parte minus rite attent' fuerint sine dilatione revocari faciatis sub violator' legum nostarum penam periculo incurrendi, Ipsumque Arthurum si quam sentent' in eum ea occasione fuluminaveritis penit. absolvatis ab eadem, Teste J. Holt mil. apud Westm' xxviii. die Novembris, Anno regni nostri secundo.  
Edward Jevon of London, Gent. maketh Oath, That he this Deponent did on the ninth day of this Instant December 1690. serve the now Bishop of Exeter with their Majesties Writ of Prohibition by leaving with him the said Writ under the Seal of Their Majesty's Court of Kings-Bench: A Copy of which Writ is above written.  
The same Writ was served at the Suit of Sir K. mutatis mutandis.  
Edw. Jevon. Jur ' 22. die Decemb. 1690. Coram    

POSTSCRIPT.  
SInce these Papers were finished, Mr. Painter, the new pretended Rector and his party, have set on foot another practice, as little warranted by the Statutes of the College, as the rest of the proceedings above mentioned: They have assumed a power to themselves of Electing New Officers out of their own party in the room of the old ones, whom the Visitor had as Arbitrarily suspended, and with the assistance of the Youth of the College have placed these New Officers by force and violence both in the Hall and the Chapel, and that whilst the matter of Right is depending judicially before a proper Court, and at their own Suit; and they dare to confront the Court of Kings-Bench, which has already declared the pretended Sentence of Excommunication against the Rector to be null and void, by opposing forcibly his entrance into the Chapel under the pretence of his being an Excommunicated person.  
The particulars of these disorders are not here intended to be made public; but their unstatutable proceeding in choosing New Officers as aforesaid, must be taken notice of, and the Authors of these confusions put in mind of the Statutes, which they seem to have forgotten.  
It is provided by the Statute De Electione Subrectoris & Decani, &c: that their Election shall be, Tricesimo die Junii annuatim modò & formâ subsequentibus, videlicet quod convocatis per Rectorem quinque maximè senioribus scholaribus perpetuis tunc in Universitate praesentibus, inquirat dictus Rector palam ac publiè suffragia singulorum, quibus suum duplex suffragium addat, & ille Subrector habeatur, in quem plura suffragia praedictorum consenserint. Quae similiter forma eligendi Decani semper observetur. So that by the Statute the Election is appointed to be upon a certain day of the year, viz. on the 30 th'. of June; and so strict was the College formerly in observing their Statutes, and of their Oaths, that they conceived a just doubt whether or no in any case whatsoever they could proceed to an Election upon any other day: And therefore they proposed it as a question to their Visitor in Queen Elizabeth's time, Si forte Subrector, Decanus, etc. Quoquo tempore ante Crastinum Petri fato vel sodalitio cesserit, vel amotus fuerit a Collegio, quum ipso crastino Petri nec aliàs praedictorum Electiones fieri Statuta praescribant, quid interim faciendum? To which the Answer is, Quum quid tale evenerit, alius idoneus in cedentis vel amoti officium vacuum a solitis Electoribus juxta Statuta intrà septem dies usque ad crastinum Petri sequentis, nec ultrà ex ea Electione substituatur & eligatur. By this Question and Answer it appears that the College in those days had not the least apprehension of an Officer's place becoming void otherwise than by Death, Session or Expulsion; and none of the Officers are either dead, or have made a Session, or are Expelled: suspended taliter qualiter they are. But as the Statutes do no where warrant any such thing; so if they did, there could be no ground to choose new ones in their room, because new ones are not to be chosen but in one of the three cases a forementioned; and if Suspension did warrant a new Election, it ought to be made within seven days after the Suspension: so that all's wrong. Nor can any pretence of necessity justify what's done; for if there be any such necessity, it's a necessity that their own illegal and unstatuable procedeings have occasioned.  
FINIS.   

ERRATA.  
PAg. 4. lin. 31. leg. Gigger, Pag. 7. lin. 30. leg. before. Pag. 15. lin. leg. Summariè. Pag. 22. lin. 17. deal Senior. Pag. 22. lin. 11. leg. own. Pag. 24. lin. 28. leg. excercebo. Pag. 25. lin. 38, & 39 leg. inquietabo. Pag. 32. lin. 17. leg. minùs. Pag. 36. lin. 4. del. S●●●…r. Pag. 63. del. Senior. Pag. 64. lin. 8. leg. effluxerit ibid. lin. 6. leg. Exoniensi. Pag 67. lin. 30. for Fellows leg. Fellow. Pag. 69. lin. 28. leg. ●ore.