The Grey Friars in Oxford

by A. G. Little

Adam however refused to sign, and the meeting was prorogued till the next day, the first Sunday in Lent, only to be postponed again till Monday, when Adam, ‘in the presence of the chancellor, masters, and scholars,’ repeated his objections, adding others. He could not, he argued, agree to a statute of which he disapproved, merely to gain his immediate point. The promised ‘graces’ were fallacious,

‘since by the opposition of any one man such a grace could be long delayed or altogether prevented; thus even the best men would be rejected, and he who was approved by divinity would be reproved by inhumanity.’

Further, it was unreasonable to require his signature, seeing that he was now almost a stranger (quasi foras factus), having for three years retired from the office of lecturing in their University. At length he formally washed his hands of the whole matter, withdrawing even his opposition,

‘since the measure, dangerous as it was and distasteful to him, did not seem to him to be conceived in a spirit of wilful injustice,’ (non videtur secundum planum sui praeferre iniquitatem).

He then left the assembly, while the seven commissioners withdrew to decide on the terms of the statute, which was merely a recapitulation of the original report. The Chancellor at once sent Adam the final decision, ‘written with his own hand,’ which the latter duly forwarded to the Provincial Minister. He left Oxford on Wednesday, the very day on which the statute was passed, while Thomas of York celebrated his ‘vesperies’ on Thursday and his inception on Friday, under the presidency of Friar Peter de Manners. In view of the bitterness which marked both the contemporary struggle between the University and Mendicants at Paris, and the disputes between the University and Dominicans at Oxford sixty years later, it is impossible not to be struck with the good feeling and moderation displayed both by Adam and his opponents.

The controversy at the beginning of the fourteenth century was to a large extent the sequel to the events we have just related[249]. The Dominicans in 1311 appealed first to the King, and when this proved of no avail, to the Pope, complaining that graces were frequently refused to fit candidates, and demanding the repeal of the statute of 1253. The appeal was read in the church of the Minorites,

‘in the presence of a vast multitude of people there assembled on the occasion of a public sermon to the clerks,’

but the Franciscans took no active part in the matter, and the details of the struggle belong to the history of the Black Friars. The other Mendicant Orders however were no doubt involved in the odium which attached to the conduct of the Dominicans, and from this time forth the jealous feeling between the friars and the University never died out.

The issue of the controversy concerned the Franciscans no less than the Preaching Friars. In 1314 the arbitrators to whom the matter had been submitted published their award[250]. The statute of 1253 was upheld, but the right of refusing to any one, who had not ruled in Arts, the grace to incept in theology, was practically withdrawn from each individual member of Congregation and vested in the Regent Masters of the Theological Faculty.

‘On such a grace being asked, every Master shall be bound to swear on the gospels ... that he will not refuse such grace out of malice, hatred or rancour, but only for the common utility and honour of the university. And if notwithstanding this oath such grace be refused by any one, the reason of the refusal shall at once be set forth in the same Congregation of Masters in the presence of the Chancellor and proctors of the university and the Masters ruling in Theology, and within ten days or less it shall be discussed for the decision of the university whether that reason be sufficient or not. And if the reason of the aforesaid refusal be sufficient in the judgment of the Masters then ruling in Theology or of the majority of them, the refusal of the grace shall hold good; but if the reason of the refusal be insufficient in the judgment of the same persons, eo ipso the grace shall be granted[251].’