hath the same Court with the Bishop so that the Legal Acts of the Court are the Bishop's Acts by whose Authority he sits there so that no Appeal lies from the Bishop's Officer to himself but to the Superiour and although a Commissary be allow'd to have the Power of the Ordinary in Testamentary Causes which were not originally of Spiritual Iurisdiction as it is said in Henslow's Case with which Lindwood agrees yet in Acts of Spiritual and Voluntary Iurisdiction the Case is otherwise For the Bishop by Appointing a Chancellor doth not devest himself of his own Ordinary Power but he may delegate some parts of it by Commission to others which goes no farther than is expressed in it For it is a very great Mistake in any to think that such who act by a Delegated Power can have any more Power than is given to them where a Special Commission is required for the Exercise of it For by the General Commission no other Authority passes but that of hearing Causes but all Acts of voluntary Jurisdiction require a Special Commission which the Bishop may restrain as he sees Cause For as Lyndwood saith Nothing passes virtute Officii but the Hearing of Causes so that other Acts depend upon the Bishop's particular Grant for that purpose And the Law no-where determins the bounds of a Chancellor's Power as to such Acts nor can it be supposed so to do since it is but a delegated Power and it is in the Right of him that Deputes to Circumscribe and Limit it Neither can Use or Custom inlarge such a Power which depends upon another's Will. And however by modern Practise the Patents for such Places have passed for the Life of the Person to whom they were first granted yet it was not so by the ancient Ecclesiastical Law of England For Lyndwood affirms That a Grant of Jurisdiction ceases by the Death of him who gave it Per Mortem deputantis cessat Potestas Officialium or else it could never pass into the Dean and Chapter sede vacante or to the Guardian of the Spiritualties And he gives a good Reason for it Nè invitus habeat Officialem sibi fortassis odiosum It 's true that by the Statute 37 H. 8. c. 17. meer Doctors of Law are made capable of Exercising all manner of Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction But it doth not assign the Extent of their Jurisdiction but leaves it to the Bishops themselves from whom their Authority is derived And the Law still distinguishes between Potestas Ordinaria and Delegata for the former supposes a Person to act in his own Right and not by Deputation which I suppose no Chancellors or Officials will pretend to But how far now a Commission to exercise Jurisdiction doth hold when the Person who gave it is dead is not my present business to enquire but in Sutton's Case it seems to be taken for granted by the Counsel that a Chancellor's Patent confirmed by Dean and Chapter doth give a Man a Freehold for Life if he be capable of doing his Duty otherwise he may be deprived for Insufficiency as Doctor Sutton was But Noy saith That the Court was in doubt how far the Act of the Predecessor could bind the Successor as to the Profits And in the Prebend of Hatcherlies Case Dodderidge declared That Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction in Iudicial Acts may be executed by Substitute but a Grant of it is not good but during the Bishop's Life and shall not bind the Successor And Coke thought it a very hard thing That the Successor should not remove him but be bound to answer for the Acts and Offences of a Commissary which he never put-in But these things belong not to our present business any farther than to shew that however in some Cases the Bishops may substitute others yet as to Resignations of Benefices for all that I can find the Law only takes notice of the Bishop himself Lyndwood observes that there is a difference to be made between the Resignation of a Simple Benefice i. e. where there is no Cure of Souls and of such a one that hath such a Cure going along with it In the former Case he saith That a Resignation may be to the prejudice of the Party without the Bishop's Consent but in the latter where it may be to the prejudice of Others as well as of himself it hath no force without the Bishop's Ratification In hoc Casu necessaria est Ratihabitio Episcopi So that no Resignation of a Cure of Souls can be of any Validity without the Bishop's Acceptance In the Case of Smith against Foanes it was resolved and agreed by all upon Evidence at Bar That a Resignation to a Proctor does not make the Church void until it be accepted by the Bishop and acknowledged before him 2. But suppose the Resignation be made into the hands of the Bishop is he bound to Accept it By what Law For what Reason Must he not enquire into the Reason and Inducements of the Resignation whether it be Corrupt or not No Bishop can be bound to accept a Corrupt Resignation and whether it be so or not he is bound to enquire and if he be not satisfied by what Law can he be required to do that which he cannot do with a good Conscience If the Law hath trusted him with accepting a Resignation it hath likewise trusted him with Judging whether it be fit to be accepted or not In Gayton's Case it is plain That the Bishop may refuse a Resignation before a Publick Notary when there was a Condition annexed to it which the Law doth not annex For in this Case the Condition was That if such or such a Person were not presented within six Months the Resignation should be null which Coke then said made it void because Resignations ought to be free and this is a Judicial Act to which a Condition cannot be annexed no more than an Ordinary may admit upon Condition But it may be objected that in Case of Donatives the Resignation must be into the Patrons hands as in Gays and Fairchild's Case why then may not a Resignation be good to a Patron in other Benefices since those are as really Benefices as the other The difference is that there is no Presentation to the Bishop in Donatives For it is agreed by the Judges in that Case That if there were a Presentation once made to the Bishop it ceases to be a Donative and becomes always Presentable So that the Case of Donatives is very different for we say that wherever the Bishop hath a Right to admit it is his Right to accept of a Resignation But in this Case the Bishop is supposed to have nothing to do in the Admission or Institution of the Person If it be asked how the Bishops came to lose their Right of receiving the Presentation to these Benefices I answer that they seem to me to have come one of these two
Incouragement of those in Holy Orders to attend upon the Service of God in them and the Law of the Land hath so annexed the Spiritual Duty with the Temporal Advantage that no one can be capable of the latter that is not obliged to the other So that the Right of Discharging a Spiritual Trust and the Right of Enjoying the Profits go together But to prevent the unspeakable mischief of Purchasing the Profits which are devoted to such a Spiritual use this hath been called by the detestable Name of Simony and very severe Laws have been made not only against the giving of Money but the using of any indirect means to obtain a Presentation Because such things do lessen the Esteem of those who use them and not only thereby make them more uncapable of doing Service but expose the Sacred Function it self to Contempt 2. Another great End of these Laws is to keep the Clergy from Oppression and Slavery I am far from going about to lessen the Just and Legal Rights of Patrons who by our Laws enjoy some Privileges which are not allowed them in other Countries where the Ecclesiastical Law is stricter than here in England as in the liberty of Selling the Rights of Advowsons their Trial at Common Law the six Months for Patrons c. But for our right understanding the present matter it must be consider'd as to the Rights of Patrons That it was not an Original and Absolute Right to dispose of Benefices as they pleased but a limited Trust reposed in them to put-in Fit Persons to Discharge the Duties of their Places It is very well known to all persons who have looked into these matters that in the first Settlement of this Church of England the Bishops of the several Dioceses had them under their own immediate Care and that they had the Clergy living in a Community with them whom they sent abroad to several parts of their Dioceses as they saw occasion to Imploy them but that by Degrees they saw a necessity of fixing Presbyters within such a Compass to attend upon the Service of God among the People that were the Inhabitants that these Precincts which are since called Parishes were at first much larger and cast into such Divisions in each Diocese as probably make up the several Deaneries since that when Lords of Manors were inclined to build Churches for their own Conveniencies they found it necessary to make some Endowments to oblige those who officiated in their Churches to a diligent Attendance that upon this the several Bishops were very well content to let those Patrons have the Nomination of Persons to those Churches provided they were satisfied of the Fitness of those Persons and that it were not deferred beyond such a limited time So that the Right of Patronage is really but a limited Trust and the Bishops are still in Law the Judges of the Fitness of the Persons to be Imployed in the several parts of their Dioceses But the Patrons never had the Absolute Disposal of their Benefices upon their own Terms but if they did not present Fit Persons within the limited time the Care of the Places did return to the Bishop who was then bound to provide for them Some pretend That before the Lateran Council there was no time of Lapse to the Bishop if the Patron did not Present but that the Bishop was to provide one to serve the Cure in the mean time and the Patron might present when he would But this is certainly a Mistake however it be asserted by Persons of great Authority My Lord Coke cites Bracton and Fleta for it but I can find nothing like it in either of them Bracton indeed speaks of the time of Lapse by the Council of Lateran which was to be after six Months if a Dispute happen'd about the Title and this Constitution is extant in the Decretals and the same Words are used by Fleta but not a Word in either of them of any unlimited Power which Patrons had before as far as I can find Which made me wonder at such a Maxim as I find by several father'd on Bracton Ante Concilium Lateranense nullum currebat tempus contra Praesentantes But Rolls very fairly reports it just as it is in Bracton yet afterwards he recites Mr. Selden's words Before this Lateran Council Alex. had sent a Constitution hither which allow'd the Bishops in case any Difference happened about the Patronage to sequester the Profits without fixing the Time which is all the Foundation I can meet with for this famous Maxim But before this we may observe several Canons of Councils which limited the Patrons to three Months These Canons were never receiv'd in England which if I mistake not had always the privilege of six Months for Patrons This I ground upon the Register a Book of great Authority and considerable Antiquity where it is said expresly That the Bishops have not the Right of Lapse till six Months are passed which is said to be Secundum legem Consuetudinem Regni Angliae according to the ancient Custom and Law of England And the like was observed in the old Customs of Normandy But by the Ancient Law of England notwithstanding the Right of Patronage the Bishop of the Diocese had these Rights reserved to him 1. The Right of Admission of the Person presented 2. The Right of Lapse or bestowing the Benefice if the Patron failed his six Months 3. The Right of making an Avoidance by Deprivation or Resignation 1. The Bishop hath by the Law the Right of Admission of the Person presented by the Patron For here from the time of Christianity being receiv'd among the Saxons at least as far as we can trace any Footsteps of the Settlement of a Parochial Clergy it was expresly provided for That no Presbyters should be fixed in any Places without the Consent of the Bishop For this we have a Canon of Theodore Archbishop of Canterbury preserved by Egbert Archbishop of York each the Seventh in their Sees but at some distance of time in his Collection of Canons the words are Statutum est ut sine Authoritate Consensu Episcoporum Presbyteri in quibuslibet Ecclesiis non constituantur nec inde expellantur siquis hoc facere tentaverit Synodali Sententiâ feriatur So that by the Original Constitution of this Church the Bishops had the Power of Fixing Presbyters in Churches and of Removing them if there were occasion and no other Persons could do it without them This doth by no means infringe the Right of Nomination or Presentation of Fit Persons to the Bishop but it implies that no such Presentation was sufficient unless the Bishop did first Approve and Consent to the Person Wherein the Ancient Right of Patronage here in England did consist we cannot have a better Account than from the Words of all the Nobility of England in their Remonstrance to Gregory IX when he attempted to
ways 1. By Royal Licence so my Lord Coke saith That the King may not only found a Church or Free Chapel Donative himself but may License any Subject to do the same But the Register supposes a Royal Foundation and not a meer Royal Licence and that it must be proved to be Ancient too and therefore a New Licence will not come up to the Register 2. By Peculiar Privilege As when a Lord of a Manor in a great Parish having his Tenants about him at a remote distance from the Parish-Church offers to build and endow a Church there provided that it should belong entirely to him and his Family to put in such Persons as they should think fit if they were in Holy Orders It 's very possible that the Bishops at that time to encourage such a Work might permit them to enjoy this Liberty which being continued time out of mind is turned into a Prescription If these Donatives had been common the Mischief would have been more visible but being so few in Comparison they have been less taken notice of And they are to be distinguished from those called Sine-cures and Exempt Iurisdictions For Sine-cures in Truth are Benefices Presentable but by means of Vicarages endowed in the same places the Persons who enjoy them have by long Custom been excused from Residence which is the most can be said for them And such Sine-cures if they be resigned it must be into the Bishop's hands Exempt Iurisdictions are not so called because under No Ordinary but because they are not under the Ordinary of the Diocese but have one of their own These are therefore called Peculiars and they are of several sorts 1. Royal Peculiars which are the King 's Free Chapels and are Exempt from any Jurisdiction but the King 's and therefore such may be Resigned into the King's hands as their proper Ordinary either by Ancient Privilege or Inherent Right But how far Resignations may be made to the King as Supreme Ordinary as in Goodman's Case it is not here a place to examine 2. Archbishops Peculiars which are not only in the Neighbour Dioceses but dispersed up and down in remoter places For it appears by Eadmerus That wherever the Archbishop had an Estate belonging to him he had the sole Iurisdiction as Ordinary 3. Deans and Chapters Peculiars which are Places wherein by Ancient Compositions the Bishops have parted with their Iurisdiction as Ordinaries to those Societies whose Right was not Original but derived from the Bishop and where the Compositions are lost it depends upon Prescription as in the Deans and Chapters of St. Pauls and Litchfield which are mentioned in the Books 11 H. 4. 9. 4. Peculiars belonging to Monasteries For the richer Monasteries were very uneasy until they had obtained either from the Bishops or from the Popes which proved the most effectual but more chargeable way an Exemption from Ordinary Jurisdiction Those Churches which the Monasteries had gotten to be annexed to themselves were called Appropriations but how far these were Exempt from the Ordinaries Jurisdiction is not fully understood and therefore I shall endeavour to explain it 1. Appropriations did not at first imply any Exemption from the Ordinary For it was expresly provided in the Canon Law that no Persons should be put into such Churches without Institution from the Bishop to whom the Incumbents were to be answerable in all Spiritual matters as in all Temporal to the Abbots And in the oldest Appropriations which I have seen there is a Salvo per omnia Iure Episcopali which words are inconsistent with an Exemption 2. The Forms of Appropriation were different afterwards For although none could be made without the Bishop's Consent yet that Consent was expressed in different ways and had different Effects If the Bishop only confirmed the Lay-Patron's Gift then nothing but the Right of Patronage passed and his Jurisdiction remained If the Bishop joyned in the Donation in these words Concedimus vobis talem Ecclesiam then he passed away his Temporal Rights as to that Church If the Bishop granted the Church Pleno jure then the Canonists say he passed his Diocesan Right which consisted in Rights which the Bishop had distinct from his Episcopal Iurisdiction which it was thought he could not part with by any Act of his for that were to devest himself of his Order 3. Appropriations confirmed by the Papal Authority were allow'd to carry with them Exemptions from the Ordinary And therefore the Monasteries which could bear the charge did not think themselves free from their Ordinaries till they had obtained Bulls for that purpose and then they took themselves to be free in their Conventual Churches as well as their Chapels or Oratories on their own Lands 4. All Papal Exemptions are taken away by Act of Parliament 31 H. 8. c. 13. and the Churches so exempted are put under the Iurisdiction of the Ordinary of the Diocese or such Commissioners as the King shall appoint So that no Papal Exemption can now be pleaded as to Appropriated Churches how clear and full soever the Charters of Exemption were This is a thing so little taken notice of that I shall set down the words Sect. 23. Be it further enacted that such of the said Monasteries c. and all Churches and Chapels to them or any of them belonging which before the Dissolution c. were exempted from the Visitation or Visitations and all other Iurisdiction of the Ordinary or Ordinaries within whose Diocese they were situate or set shall from thenceforth be within the Iurisdiction and Visitation of the Ordinary or Ordinaries within whose Diocese they or any of them be situate and set or within the Visitation and Iurisdiction of such Person or Persons as by the King's Highness shall be limited or appointed this Act or any other Exemption Liberty or Iurisdiction to the contrary notwithstanding Therefore no Persons who enjoy the Estates belonging to Monasteries can now plead an Exemption by virtue thereof from the Ordinaries Iurisdiction nor that they have a Power to put-in and put-out as they please without any regard to the Bishop's Authority But suppose there were no Endowment and that the Churches were built on the Site of the Monasteries and so were supplied by their own Body then such Persons are wholly at their Will and they may turn them out as they please I answer I confess the Condition of such Stipendiaries is as bad as of those who hold their Benefices under Bonds of Resignation For Tenures at the Will of the Lord are the worst of any But it is to be hoped that such Persons who enjoy such Estates as were originally designed for the support of the Parochial Clergy however at first fraudulently perverted by the Combination of the Monks and Popes will at the least take Care that the Cure of Souls be duely provided for in such Places For that Burthen goes along with the Churches Revenue in whose hands
what Bargains they think fit who mind not the Men but the Advantage they are to get by them And there is a just Presumption that those are not very Deserving who are ready to drive such Bargains for themselves and such Men are not to be valued as Cattle in a Market by the Money they will yield 2. That Lawyers would not encourage their Clients in indirect methods of obtaining Presentations For here lies a great part of our present Mischief the Clergymen who want Benefices They say We are Ignorant of the Law but we go to those whose business it is to understand it and they tell us they have Cases and Precedents in their Books for such Bonds and they have been many times adjudged in the Courts of Law to be good and therefore why are we to blame if we submit to them But here lies the great Mistake the Point is really a Point of Conscience as to the Oath but the Question put to them can be only a Point of Law who are to give Judgment upon the Statute and according to the Rules of Judgment allowed in their Courts But I cannot but observe that there is no Precedent offer'd before 8 Iac. 1. and in the 15th was a contrary Judgment In the Beginning of Charles I. the former Judgment was affirmed and from hence it hath come to be such a prevailing Opinion I confess that I am not satisfied how far such Precedents or one or two Judicial Sentences make a thing to pass for Law nor whether the Authority of such a Sentence or the Reason is to give the Force of Law to it I observe that my Lord Coke when he speaks of the Laws of England he reckons up Common-Law Statute-Law Customs reasonable c. but he never mentions the Judgment of the Courts as any Part of our Law they being no more but a Declaratory Sentence of the Majority of the Judges when it may be the other differ upon better Reasons and when such Reasons come to be thought better by one more at another time then the contrary must pass for Law on the same grounds How often do we hear that the Judges were divided in their Opinions in point of Law How often that the greater number went one way but Law and Reason on the other Suppose a Lord Chief Justice of great Skill and Knowledge in the Law to be unequally yoked with others of far less Judgment how is it possible to prevent that Judgment shall not be given on the wrong side if the three happen to be of an Opinion against him or one be absent and two be against one In a late great Cause viz. of Commendam although three Judges concurred in Opinion and the General Practise was allowed to be of that side yet because one Judge differ'd from the rest his Authority was produced against the Sentence of the Court and for what Cause can this be but the Supposition that it is not the Sentence but the Reason which makes the Law My Lord Chief Justice Hales in a MS. Discourse of the History and Analysis of the Laws of England Chap. 4. makes three Constituents of the Common Law of England 1. The Common Usage and Custom 2. The Authority of Parliament 3. The Iudicial Decisions of Courts of Iustice but how Consonant to one another in the Series and Succession of Time This is spoken with great Judgment For no doubt a mighty Regard ought to be shewed to a Concurrent Sense of so many Persons of Ability in the Law in the different Times wherein such Matters have been before them and this is the highest Authority for expounding the Law but it cannot amount to the Making of a Law For as the same Excellent Person adds It is true the Decisions of Courts of Iustice although by the strength of the Law of this Kingdom they do bind as a Law between the Parties to it in that particular Case in Question till Reversed by Error or Attaint yet they do not make a Law for that only the King by the Assent of Parliament can do All that I aim at is not in the least to take off from the Authority and Reverence due to Judicial Decisions built upon a General Agreement from time to time or upon Evident Reason in point of Law but only that things should not be so positively asserted to be Law which are built only on a few Modern Precedents without any convincing Evidence Which I take to be the present Case 3. That the Clergy would mind their own Honour and Interest and that of the Church and Religion so much as not to Accept of Benefices upon such Ensnaring Terms as those of Bonds of Resignation If what I have said on this Argument be true I am sure they have all the Reason in the World to Refuse them when they know not what the Consequence of them may be and they do know what kind of Oath they are to take And no Man can honestly take an Oath that is not satisfied that such Bonds are no Simoniacal Contract in the Sense of that Law by which he is required to take the Oath Now the Oath is not imposed by the Courts of Common Law in pursuance of the Statute for then it were to be understood according to the Sense and Meaning of it but that very Statute leaves the Ecclesiastical Laws as they were by which Simony is of a larger Extent than it is understood at Common Law and by those Laws this Oath is required Therefore my Request is to all such Clergymen as are in danger of having such put upon them that they would study the Case and satisfy their Minds before they venture upon taking an Oath which may afterwards rob them of that Peace and Tranquillity of Mind which every Good man will Esteem above any Benefice in the World FINIS Page 73. lin 13. for Gays read Gayr Ibid. Marg. for Mar. read Moor. A Catalogue of Books published by the Right Reverend Father in God Edward Lord Bishop of Worcester and sold by Henry Mortlock at the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-Yard A Rational account of the Grounds of Protestant Religion being a Vindication of the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury's Relation of a Conference c. from the pretended Answer of T. C. wherein the true Grounds of Faith are cleared and the false discovered the Church of England vindicated from the imputation of Schism and the most important particular Controversies between us and those of the Church of Rome throughly examined the second Edition Folio Sermons preached upon several Occasions with a Discourse annexed concerning the true Reasons of the Sufferings of Christ wherein Crellius his Answer to Grotius is considered Folio Origines Britannicae or the Antiquities of the British Churches with a Preface concerning some pretended Antiquities relating to Britain in vindication of the Bishop of St. Asaph Folio Irenicum A Weapon Salve for the Churches Wounds Quarto Origines Sacrae or a Rational Account of
the Grounds of Christian Faith as to the Truth and Divine Authority of the Scriptures and the matters therein contained Quarto The Unreasonableness of Separation or an Impartial account of the History Nature and Pleas of the present Separation from the Communion of the Church of England to which several late Letters are annexed of eminent Protestant Divines abroad concerning the Nature of our Differences and the way to compose them Quarto A Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome and the hazard of Salvation in the Communion of it in Answer to some Papers of a revolted Protestant wherein a particular account is given of the Fanaticism and Divisions of that Church Octavo An Answer to several late Treatises occasioned by a Book entituled A Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome and the hazard of Salvation in the Communion of it Part I. Octavo A Second Discourse in vindication of the Protestant Grounds of Faith against the pretence of Infallibility in the Roman Church in Answer to the Guide in Controversie by R. H. Protestancy without Principles and Reason and Religion or the certain Rule of Faith by E. W. with a particular enquiry into the Miracles of the Rom. Church Octa. An Answer to Mr. Cressy's Epistle apologetical to a Person of Honour touching his Vindication of Dr. Stillingfleet Octavo A Defence of the Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome in answer to a Book entituled Catholicks no Idolaters Octavo Several Conferences between a Romish Priest a Fanatick Chaplain and a Divine of the Church of England being a full Answer to the late Dialogues of T. G. Octavo The Grand Question concerning the Bishops Right to vote in Parliament in Cases Capital stated and argued from the Parliament Rolls and the History of former times with an Enquiry into their Peerage and the Three Estates in Parliament Octavo The Bishop of Worcester's Charge to the Clergy of his Diocese in his primary Visitation begun at Worcester Sept. 11. 1690. A Discourse concerning the Illegality of the Ecclesiastical Commission in Answer to the Vindication and Defence of it wherein the true notion of the Legal Supremacy is cleared and an Account is given of the Nature Original and Mischief of the Dispensing Power The Council of Trent Examin'd and Disprov'd by Catholick Tradition in the main points in Controversie between Us and the Church of Rome with a particular Account of the Times and Occasions of Introducing them Twenty Sermons preached upon several occasions not yet collected into a Volume Quarto 3. Inst. 156. Cr. Car. 361. 3. Inst. 153. Marg. F. 156. Hob. f. 167. Cr. Car. 361. Sylvestr v. Simon Sigon de Judic l. 2. c. 30. Quintil. l. 12. V. Ciceron â—ro Plancio Dion l. 36. Lamprid. in Alex. Sever. Arist. Pol. l. 2. c. 12. â— Inst. 24. b. 3. Inst. 156. Noy 25. C. de jurejur Present stat Lyndw. f. 56. 2. Inst. 361. Bract. l. 4. 341. Ext. de Jure Patron c. 22. Fleta l. 5. c. 14. Selden of Tythes c. 12. 389. Abridgment 2. 354. Ext. de Officio Jud. Ordin c. 4. Eugen. 2. in Synod Rom. c. 24. Leo 4. in Synod Rom. c. 25. ed. Holst Registr f. 42. Cust. Norm Art 69. pelm. Conil Matt. Paris A. D. 1239. p. 513. Innocent Epist l. 1. Selden of Tythes 361. â— 387. 83. 86. 38â— 2. Inst. 632. 5 R. 57. Anders 190. Leon. 3. 200. Novel 53. â—it 12. c. 2. 23. c. 18. Cap. l. 1. c. 84. l. 5. 98. Addit 4. 95. Ext. de Jure Patr. c. 29. Rebuff de Nomin n. 10. Fra. de Roye de Jure Patron Proleg c. 25. Hob. 154. De Roye de Jure Patr. p. 95. 145. Dr. Stud. c. 36. 125. Hob. 17. Brownl 21. 27. Dr. Stud. 124. Plowd Com. 498. b. 1. Inst. 341. Glanvil l. 13. c. 20. 1. Inst. 343. b. 2. Inst. 357. v. Flamin Paris de Resignat l. 7. c. 1. n. 9. Lyndw. f. 55. c. Ne lepra 6. de Appel c. Roman Lyndw. f. 54. 9 R. 41. De Testam v. Stat. v. Approbat 6. De Ossicio Vicarii c. 2. De Sequestr v. Officiales Bracton l. 5. c. 2. Fleta l. 6. c. 37. 1. Inst. 96. Cowel v. Ordin Cr. Car. 65. Noy 91. 152. Noy 157. â—wen 12. Yelvert 60 Mar. 765. Cr. 2. 63. 1. Inst. 344 1. Inst. 344. Registr 40. 3. â—ynd f. 64. 80 â—olls Abrid 356. â—oke 12. 41 〈◊〉 Eadm Hist. in Anselm p. 22. Rolls Abrid 2. 357. C. 16. Q. 2. c. â—ane Ext. de Donat c. Pastor Lyndw. f. 80 Cr. 2. 248. Cr. 2. 274. â—oy 2â— â— Car. 180. â—utton 110. â—nes 220. â—eble 2. 446. Cr. Car. 42â— Cr. Eliz. 789 C. 12. 100. Cr. 2. 385. Noy 25. Bulstrod 3. 90. Hob. 165. Wynch 63. Rep. Chancery 2. 399. 1. Inst. 17. b. Navarr Man c. 23. n. 109. 3. Inst. 156. 1. Inst. 11. 110. b. 115. b.