# Terræ-filius: or, the Secret History of the University of Oxford/Terræ Filius No. III

Published London 1726.
Terræ-Filius. No. III.
Quo semel est imbuta recens, servabit Odorem Testa diu.——
Saturday, January 21.
THERE cannot be a plainer proof that any society wants a reformation, than to shew undeniably that it is faulty in its constitution, as well as its morals; that the laws made for its preservation and well-being are, many of them, wicked, unreasonable, ridiculous, or contradictory to ane another; that, for the most part, those laws, which are so, are more insisted upon, and more ​rigorously executed than those which are no so; and that errors, of some kind or other, either in the laws themselves, or in the abuse of them, appear almost in every particular.
To give a just account of the state of the university of Oxford, I must begin where every freshman begins, with admission and matriculation; for it so happens, that the first thing a young man has to do there, is to prostitute his conscience, and enter himself into perjury, at the same time that he enters himself into the university.
If he comes elected from any publick school, as from Westminster, Winchester, or Merchant-Taylors, to be admitted upon the foundation of any colleges he swears to a great volume of statutes, which he never read, and to observe a thousand customs, rights and privileges, which he knows nothing of, and with which, if he did, he could not perhaps honestly comply.
He takes one oath, for example, that he has not an estate in a land of inheritance, nor a perpetual pension of five pounds per annum, though perhaps he has an estate of ten times that value; being taught that it is mere matter of form, and may be very conscientiously complied with, not withstanding the seeming perjury it includes.
To evade the force of this oath, several persons have made their estates over in trust to a friend, and sometimes to a bed-maker; as a gentleman in Oxford did, who locked her up in his closet, till he had taken the oath, and then dispossess'd the poor old woman of her imaginary estate, and cancell'd the writings.
That most excellent casuist, the present bishop of Ely, in a book entitled, Chronicon Preciosum, ​has, with great judgment and accuracy, discuss'd this point; viz. Whether a person, who has an estate of inheritance in land, or a perpetual pension of above five pounds per annum, as things now stand, may with equity, and a good conscience, take the aforesaid oath; and has determin'd it in the affirmative. But I am persuaded, that that excellent person would think it a very laudable design, as the value of things is so much alter'd since the foundation of most colleges, to have the statutes also alter'd; because many scrupulous persons, however safely they might do it, will not take an oath in any other, than the plain, literal, and grammatical sense of it: neither, in strictness, ought the contrary to be commonly practis'd, because it depreciates the value of an oath, and opens a door to numberless evasions and prevarications.
Within fifteen days after his admiſſion into any college, he is obliged to be matriculated, or admitted a member of the univerſity; at which time he ſubſcribes the thirty-nine articles of religion, though often without knowing what he is doing, being ordered to write his name in a book, without mentioning upon what account; for which he pays ten ſhillings and ſix pence.
At the ſame time he takes the oaths of allegiance and ſupremacy, which he is prætaught to evade, or think null: ſome have thought themſelves ſufficiently abſolved from them by kiſſing their thumbs, inſtead of the book; others, in the croud, or by the favour of an honeſt beadle, have not had the book given them at all.
He alſo ſwears to another volume of ſtatutes, which he knows no more of than his private college-ſtatutes, and which contradict one another in many inſtances, and demand unjuſt compliances in ​many others; all which he ſwallows ignorantly, and in the dark, without any wicked deſign.
If I ſhould ſay that perjury in this caſe is innocent, as to the perſon perjured, and that the whole ſin lies upon thoſe who enjoin it, I ſhould be catch'd up by ſome of my readers, as maintaining the ſame principles with our Jacobite High-Church prieſts, who have ſaddled all their late perjury upon the King who made the oath, applying the moſt christian reaſoning of ſage Huaïbras, ſo well known, upon this occaſion.
But, with my readers good leave, I think there is a great deal of difference between a man's calmly taking an oath, againſt the conviction of both his eyes and his conſcience, for ſordid lucre, or (to put the caſe in the beſt light) for fear of ſtarving; and another man's taking a blind oath, which he is unwarily led into, to obey a ſet of laws, which he reaſonably ſuppoſes are good laws, and conſiſtent with one another, (as any one would naturally conclude,) and for no ſordid end.
Indeed, the good men have got a pretty prevarication enough to excuſe their contradictory inconſiſtent ſtatutes, which is this: when a prior act, ſay they, is contradicted by a later one, the prior one is abrogated of courſe, without any formal repeal; or when a private ſtatute claſhes with the laws of the land, it is null of itſelf, as with the caſe of ſaying maſs, for which there ſtill is a ſtatute, to which we ſwear in the heap; but then we are told, that that ſtatute is of courſe abrogated by the Reformation.
Now, though this may be true enough in law, or in the nature and reaſon of things, yet I think at least, there would be no harm in having them formally aboliſhed, were it only becauſe they are uſeleſs; for it would remove all poſſible occaſion of complaint and reproach; it would ſatisfy ſcrupulous ​consciences, and keep many consciences more truly scrupulous; for when young men see that they are obliged to swear one thing, and do another, they will, by degrees, grow harden'd in their minds, and wear off that strictness and regard for an oath, which they once had, always finding out, in the nature and reason of things, somewhat to absolve them from the obligation. Besides, I am afraid, that, in truth, all statutes, wich we have sworn to obey, ought, in foro conscientia, to be obeyed, however unlawful the matter of them may have been rendered by the legislature of the land; unless, in pursuance thereof, they have been repealed.
What makes me insist upon this more than I otherwise should, and strengthens my reasons for it, is, that we find the bishop of Chester, at the royal visitation of Maudlin college, upbraiding them with this very thing: for when Dr. Hough, the present bisop of Worcester, told him that he would submit to the King as far as was consistent with the statutes; the bishop ask'd him, Whether he observ'd all those statutes? — You have a statute, said he, for mass; why don't you read mass? Which Dr. Hough was forced to answer in the manner before mentioned, that the matter of that oath was unlawful; and in such a case no man was obliged to observe an oath; and besides, that that statute was taken away by the laws of the land.
Such a reproach as this, however unjust, from the mouth of a bishop, was warning enough to them to take away, for the future, all occasion of triumph over the universities: but there is a strange temper in some men, which will not suffer them ​to part with old foundations, however weak, rotten, and obnoxious to the enemy.
But I have not mention'd the most absurd thing in matriculation yet. The statute says, if the person to be matriculated is sixteen years of age, he must subscribe the thirty-nine articles, and take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, as also an oath of fidelity to the university: but, if the person is not sixteen years of age, and above twelve, then he is only to subscribe the thirty-nine articles.
What a pack of conjurers were our forefathers! to disqualify a person to make a plain simple promise to obey his King, until he is sixteen years of age, which a child of six is able to do; and at the same time suppose him capable, at twelve years of age, to subscribe thirty-nine articles of religion, which a man of threescore, with all his experience, learning, and application, finds so hard to understand!--- I wonder they did not command us to teach our children logick and mathematicks, before they have learn'd to read.
It is hardly worth mentioning, amongst all these absurdities, that by this statute many persons avoid taking the oaths of allegiance and supremacy at all; for being, or pretending to be, under sixteen when they are matriculated, they are excused from it at that time; and I never heard that any body was ever call'd upon afterwards to take them, unless they take a degree; but how many are there who stay many years at Oxford, without taking any degree?
From such an initiation it is no wonder that we have such proficients, a Race of profligate unprincipled men: insincerity and immorality are the first rudiments of their education; they are train'd up and tutor'd in the arts of deceiving, and of being deceived; they are oblig'd to swear to statutes which they never saw, and to subscribe doctrines which they cannot understand, in order to sear their young ​consciences against any future impressions; that they may not, when they grow up, startle at things which frighten illiterate men, who have not arm'd their minds with this sort of scholastick philosophy and academical knowledge.
* ↑ Dr. Fleetwood.
* ↑ Dr. Cartwright.
* ↑ See Ayliffe's Hist. Vol. I. p. 365.