Ecclesiastical Court might proceed to punish the Offender who offered violence to a Priest the which de jure it might do by proceeding Ex Officio pro salute animae Dammages on an Action of Battery in the case reserved to the Common Law To conclude The Protestation which Bellamera the Canonist in the Proem to his Lecture on the Clementine Constitutions makes shall as to this Repertorium Canonicum Jurisve Anglico-Ecclesiastici Compendium be mine Id submittens correctioni determinationi tam Canonum Ecclesiasticorum quam Statutorum Jurumque Publice Forensium Secularium cujuslibet melius sentientis Protestans quod si in praesenti Opusculo de lapsu chalami aut inadvertentia vel forte ex ignorantia aliqua jam Scripsero id praeter intentionem scribere me contigerit Si etiam aliqua Scripsero quae errorem saperent aut male sonarent illa ex nunc Revoco volo haberi pro non Scriptis Determinationibusque Ecclesiae Anglicanae dicti Juris Forensis Oraculis semper in omnibus volo stare Et hanc Protestationem volo pro Repetita haberi in quolibet Dictorum meorum etiam condicendorum ut si reprobantur dicta Actor non propter hoc reprobetur The several CHAPTERS of the Ensuing Abridgment CHAP. PAGE 1. OF His Majesties Supremacy 1 2. Of Archbishops 12 3. Of Bishops and Ordinaries 22 4. Of Guardians of the Spiritualties 39 5. Of Congé d'Eslire Election and Confirmation 43 6. Of Consecration 46 7. Of Deans and Chapters 51 8. Of Archdeacons 60 9. Of Procurations Synodals and Pentecostals 67 10. Of Diocesan Chancellors Commissaries Officials as also of Consistories 80 11. Of Courts Ecclesiastical and their Jurisdiction 94 12. Of Churches Chappels and Church-yards 134 13. Of Churchwardens Questmen and Sidemen 159 14. Of Consolidation and Vnion of Churches 169 15. Of Dilapidations 173 16. Of Patrons and De jure Patronatus 178 17. Of Parsons and Parsonages 185 18. Of Vicars Vicarages and Benefices 196 19. Of Advowsons 220 20. Of Appropriations 220 21. Of Commendams 230 22. Of Lapse 242 23. Of Collation Presentation and Nomination 251 24. Of Examination Admission Institution and Induction 269 25. Of Avoidance and Next Avoidance also of Cession 282 26. Of Pluralities 291 27. Of Deprivation 305 28. Of Incumbents also of Residence and Non-Residence 316 29. Of Abbots and Abbies also of Chauntreys and of the Court of Augmentations 326 30. Of Annates or First-Fruits also of Aumone or Frank-Almoin 335 31. Of Altarage 339 32. Of Tithes with the Incidents thereof 344 33. Of Banns 465 34. Of Adultery 469 35. Of Bastards and Bastardy 477 36. Of Divorce also of Alimony 492 37. Of Defamation 514 38. Of Sacriledge 528 39. Of Simony 535 40. Of Blasphemy Heresie and Hereticks 559 41. Of Councils Synods and Convocations 584 42. Of Excommunication 623 43. Of the Statutes Articuli Cleri and Circumspecte agatis 639 44. Of several Writs at Common Law pertinent to this Subject 643 AN ABRIDGEMENT OF Ecclesiastical LAWS CHAP. I. Of the Kings Supremacy 1. A Description thereof or what it is 2. The Establishment thereof by Statute Laws 3. The Oath of the Kings Supremacy when first Enacted the Cause thereof 4. The King in his own Dominions Dei Vicarius 5. The King Supream Governour under God of the Church in England c. 6. Impugners of the Kings Supremacy how censured by the Canon 7. In matters Ecclesiastical the King hath here the same power de jure which the Pope formerly exercised by Usurpation 8. The Kings of this Realm anciently made their own Canons and Ecclesiastical Constitutions without the Popes Authority 9. The King is Lex viva in some cases may dispence with some Canons 10. Provisoes of some Statutes in right of the Kings Supremacy 11. No Canons or Ecclesiastical Constitutions to be made or to be of force to oblige the Subject without the Royal Assent 12. The Regal Supremacy asserted by the Ecclesiastical Injunctions of King Ed. 6. 13. The same further asserted by other Eccles Powers and Authorities 14. The Regal Supremacy asserted in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth 1. THis Ecclesiastical Abridgment begins with the Regal Supremacy a Point which cannot be touch'd with too much tenderness such of the Church of Rome as question the validity thereof may be presumed not to have consulted that Learned Canonist of their own Jo. Quintinus Hoedeus where he says That Nemini dubium quin in Primitiva Ecclesia de rebus Personis Ecclesiasticis Principes jus dixerint The Emperours were all Secular Princes who by those Laws which they established touching Persons and Things Ecclesiastical proclaimed to all the world their Supremacy therein The Thirteen first Titles of the First Book of the Emperour Justinian's Code being the Constitutions of divers Emperours do treat and judge of Things and Persons meerly Ecclesiastical yea the Emperours Areadius and Honorius ejected a Bishop as well out of his Title of Ecclesiastical Dignity as out of his Episcopal See and commanded him to be Banished for disturbing the publick Peace l. quicunque C. de Episc Cleric By this word Supremacy is here understood that undoubted Right and ancient Jurisdiction over the State Ecclesiastical within these his Majesties Realms and Dominions with the abolishing of all Forein and Usurped Power repugnant to the same which the Laws and Statutes have restored to the Crown of this Kingdom and now invested in the King as the Highest Power under God within these his Majesties Realms and Dominions unto whom all persons within the same in all Causes and Matters as well Ecclesiastical as Temporal do owe their Loyalty and Obedience before and above all other Powers and Potentates on Earth whatever 2. By the Injunctions of King Ed. 6. to the Clergy all persons Ecclesiastical having cure of Souls were Four times a year to preach in vindication of the Kings Supremacy and in opposition to the usurped power of the Bishop of Rome in this Kingdom There were divers Laws made in the time of King H. 8. for the extinguishment of all Forein Power and for the restoring unto the Crown of this Realm the Ancient Rights and Jurisdictions of the same which is the substance of the Preamble of the Statute of 1 Eliz. cap. 1. The express Letter and meaning whereof is as Sir Edward Coke observes to restore and unite to the Crown the Ancient Jurisdiction Spiritual or Ecclesiastical where as he says the First clause of the Body of the Act being to let in the Restitution of the Ancient Right and Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical within the Realm doth abolish all Forein Jurisdiction out of the Realm And then followeth the principal Clause of Restitution and Uniting of the ancient Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical being the main purpose of the Act in these words viz. Be it Enacted That such Jurisdiction Spiritual or Ecclesiastical as by any Spiritual Power or Authority hath heretofore been or lawfully may be exercised or used
for the visitation of the Ecclesiastical State and Persons and for-Reformation Order and Correction of the same and of all manner of Errors Heresies Schisms Abuses Offences Contempts and Enormities shall for ever by Authority of this Parliament be united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm This Act by a former Clause thereof doth Repeal the Statute of 1 and 2 Ph. Ma. c. 8. whereby the Acts of 26 H. 8. c. 1. and 35 H. 8. c. 3. were repealed so that the Act of Repeal being repealed the said Acts of H. 8. were implicitely revived whereby it is declared and enacted That the King his Heirs and Successors should be taken and accepted the only Supream Head in Earth of the Church of England and should have and enjoy annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm as well the Title and style thereof as all Honours Dignities Prebeminencies Jurisdictions c. to the said dignity of Supream Head belonging c. By which Style Title and Dignity the King hath all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction whatever And by which Statute the Crown was but remitted and restored to its Ancient Jurisdiction which had been formerly usurped by the Bishop of Rome And this is that Supremacy which is here meant and intended 3. The said Statute of 1 Eliz. c. 1. doth not only repeal the said Stat. of 1 and 2 P. M. c. 8. but it is also a reviver of divers Acts asserting several branches of the Kings Supremacy and re-establishing the same it doth likewise not only abolish all Forreign Authority but also annex the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction to the Crown of this Realm with power to assign Commissioners for the exercise of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction And then further Enacts to this effect viz. That all Ecclesiastical persons of what degree soever and all and every Temporal Judge Justice Mayor or other Lay or Temporal Officer or Minister and every other person having Fees or wages from the Crown within this Realm or the Dominions thereof shall upon his Corporal Oath testifie and declare in his Conscience That the Kings Majesty is the only Supream Governour of this Realm and of all other his Majesties Dominions and Countries as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes as Temporal And that no Forreign Prince Person Prelate State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction power superiority preheminence or authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm And therefore doth utterly renounce and forsake all Forreign Jurisdictions powers superiorities and authorities and doth promise that from henceforth be shall bear Faith and true Allegiance to the Kings Majesty his Heirs and lawful Successors and to his power shall assist and defend all Jurisdictions priviledges preheminencies and authorities granted or belonging to the Kings Majesty his Heirs and Successors or united or annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm The practices of the Romanists in the 4th year of Queen Elizabeth and the danger thereby threatning both the Queen and State occasioned her to call a Parliament 12. Jan. An. 156 2 3 which passed an Act For assurance of the Queens Royal power over all Estates and Subjects within her Dominions By which Statute was enacted The Oath of Supremacy as also what persons were obliged to take it and who should have power to administer the same And this was both the original and the cause of that Oath By the said Statute of 1 El. c. 1. appears also what the penalty is for refusing to take the said Oath as also the penalty of maintaining a Forreign Authority as likewise what other persons than the fore-mentioned shall be obliged to take the said Oath which was afterwards again further ratified and established by the Statute of 5 Eliz. c. 1. 4. The King within his own Territories and Dominions is according to Bracton Dei Vicarius tam in Spiritualibus quam Temporalibus And in the Ecclesiastical Laws of Edward the Confessor the King is styled Vicarius summi Regis Reges regunt Ecclesiam Dei in immediate subordination to God Yea the Pope himself Eleutherius An. 169. styled King Lueius Dei Vicarius in Regno suo 5. The Supremacy which heretofore the Pope did usurp in this Kingdom was in the Crown originally to which it is now legally reverted The Kings Supremacy in and over all Persons and Causes Ecclesiastical within his own Dominions is essentially inherent in him so that all such Authority as the Pope here once usurped claiming as Supream Head did originally and legally belong to the Crown and is now re-united to it by several Statutes as aforesaid On this Supremacy of the King as Supream Head Sr. Edward Coke grounds the power of granting a Commission of Review after a Definitive Sentence in the Delegates for one Reason that he gives is because after a Definitive Sentence the Pope as Supream Head by the Canon Law used to grant a Commission Ad Revidendum And such Authority as the Pope had claiming as Supream Head doth of right belong to the Crown Quia sicut Fontes communicant aquas fluminibus cumulative non privitive sic Rex subditis suis Jurisdictionem communicat in Causis Ecclesiasticis vigore Statuti in hujusmodi Casu editi cumulative non privitive By the Second Canon of the Ecclesiastical Constitutions of the Church of England it is ordained That whoever shall affirm that the Kings Majesty hath not the same Authority in Causes Ecclesiastical that the godly Kings had among the Jews and Christian Emperors in the Primitive Church or impeach in any part his Regal Supremacy in the said Cases restored to the Crown and by the Laws of this Realm therein established shall be Excommunicated ipso facto and not be restored but only by the Archbishop after his repentance and publick revocation of those his wicked Errors 7. The King being next under God Supream Governour of the Church of England may Qua talis redress as he shall see cause in all matters of Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction for the conservation of the Peace and Tranquillity of his Realms The Pope as appears by the Stat. of 25 H. 8. c. 21. claimed full power to dispense with all human Laws of all Realms in all Causes which he called Spiritual Now the King as Supream hath the same power in himself within his own Realms legally which the Pope claimed and exercised by Usurpation Eadem praesumitur mens Regis quae est Juris The Kings immediate personal ordinary inherent power which he executes or may execute Authoritate Regia suprema Ecclesiastica as King and Supream Governour of the Church of England is one of these Flowers qui faciunt Coronam Nor is the Kings immediate power restrained by such Statutes as authorize inferiour persons The Lord Chief Justice Hobart asserts That although the Stat. of 25 H. 8. 21. doth say That all Dispensations c. shall be granted in manner and
form following and not otherwise yet the King is not thereby restrained but his power remains full and perfect as before and he may still grant them as King for that all Acts of Grace and Justice flow from him By the Eighth Canon Concilii Calchuthensis held under Pope Adrian the First An. 787. the Pope had power to grant what Immunities and Priviledges he pleased in Church-matters and they were by the said Canon to be duly observed Whatever Authority the Pope pretended to in this Kingdom in such matters by way of Usurpation the same may the King as Supream Governour of the Church next under God in his own Dominions use and lawfully exercise by his Regal Authority ex justa plenitudine Potestatis suae Likewise Pope Agathon An. 680. in Concilio Romano-Britannico exercised his Papal Authority in the time of Lotharius King of Kent not only touching the Reformation of Errors and Heresies then in this Church but also as to the composure of differences and dissentions that then were among the Clergy of this Realm Such Presidents of the usurped power of the Papal See exercised in this Kingdom are now of no further use than to illustrate or exemplifie the Legal power inherent in the Kings of this Realm in such matters of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction for the most High and Sacred Order of Kings being of Divine Right it follows that all persons of what estate soever and all Causes of what quality soever whether Ecclesiastical or Civil within his Majesties Realms and Dominions are subordinated to the Power and Authority of the King as Supream It is not only acknowledged but also constituted by way of an Ecclesiastical Canon That the power of Calling and Dissolving Councils both National and Provincial is the true Right of all Christian Kings within their own Realms and Territories 8. The Ecclesiastical Legislative power was ever in the Kings of this Realm within their own Dominions That in Ancient times they made their own Ecclesiastical Laws Canons and Constitutions appears by several Presidents and Records of very great Antiquity which were received and observed within their own Territories without any Ratification from any Forreign power One instance among many may be given of the Ecclesiastical Laws of Alured Mag. Regis Anglorum An. 887. This they did de jure by virtue of their own inherent Supremacy And therefore when Pope Nicholas the Second An. 1066. in the Bull wherein he ordained Westminster to be the place for the Consecration of Kings gave power to Edward the Confessor and his Successors to constitute such Laws in the Church as he should think fit he gave him therein no more than was his own before For the Kings of England might ordain or repeal what Canons they thought fit within their own Dominions in right of their Regal Supremacy the same being inherent in them Jure Divino non Papali For we find that in King AEtheldreds days An. 1009. in Concilio AEnhamensi Generali the Canons then made and afterwards caused by King Kanutus to be Transcribed were called the Kings Canons not the Bishops En hujus Concilii Canones quos in suas Leges passim transcripsit Rex Canutus Malmsburius AEtheldredo Regi non Episcopis tribuit And the Peers of this Realm per Synodum Landavensem were unexcommunicable nisi prius Consulto Rege aut ejus praecepto Which is a plain demonstration That the Kings of England Anciently had the Supremacy and superintendent Ecclesiastical power and Jurisdiction inherent in themselves exclusively to all other either home or Forreign powers whatever 9. It is by good Authority asserted That the King as Supream is himself instead of the whole Law yea that he is the Law it self and the only chief Interpreter thereof as in whose Breast resides the whole knowledge of the same And that his Majesty by communicating his Authority to his Judge to expound the Laws doth not thereby abdicate the same from himself but that he may assume it again unto him when and as oft as he pleases Dr. Ridl View p. 2. c. 1. Sect. 7. Consonant whereunto is that which Borellus hath Principum Placita Legis habent vigorem eatenus vim Legis obtinebunt quatenus fuerint cum honestate conjuncta Borel de Magist Edict l. 2. c. 4. Roland à Val. Cons 91. nu 54. vo 2. And Suarez tells us That Princeps est Lex viva reipsa praecipit ut Lex per scripturam Of which Opinion also is Alexander Imola and many others Suar. Alleg. 9. nu 13. The grant of Dispensations is a peculiar and very considerable part of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction the which is eminently in the Crown and by the Stat. of 25 H. 8. the Archbishop of Canterbury may grant Dispensations Archiepiscopus possit dispensare contra Statutum Provinciale per se editum Et qui potest jus condere potest illud tollere Lindw de Cler. Conju c. 2. gl ult Extr. de Elect. c. Significasti c. Intonuit And in another place Episcopus in quibusdam Casibus Dispensare potest contra Canones Const Otho de Concu Cler. gl ver Meritis 10. The Laws and Statutes of this Realm have been tender of the Kings Supremacy ever since the Forreign power over the State Ecclesiastical was abolished In the Statute of 13 Car. 2. cap. 12. there is a Proviso That nothing in the said Act shall extend to abridge or diminish the Kings Majesties Supremacy in Ecclesiastical matters and affairs And in the Stat. of 22 Car. 2. cap. 1. there is a Proviso That not any thing therein contained shall extend to invalidate or avoid his Majesties Supremacy in Ecclesiastical affairs but that his Majesty his Heirs and Successors may from time to time and at all times hereafter exercise and enjoy all Powers and Authority in Ecclesiastical affairs as fully and amply as any of his Predecessors have or might have done 11. As no Convocations for Ecclesiastical Constitutions or for correction or reformation of Abuses in the Church can be Conven'd without his Majesties Writ for that end and purpose so being Conven'd no Canons or Constitutions that shall then be agreed on can have any effect in Law or be in force to oblige any of his Majesties Subjects until his consent thereunto be first had and obtained and until they shall have the power of Ecclesiastical Laws by being ratified and confirmed by the Supream Authority Therefore the Archbishop of Canterbury may not hold a Council for his Province without the Kings leave for when such Council was held by Hubert Archbishop of Canterbury it was prohibited by Fitz-Peter Chief Justice for that he had not the Kings License therein but he would not obey And 13 E. 3. Rot. Parl. M. 1. there was a Writ for a Convocation of the Clergy of the Province of Canterbury and Pauls And another for the other of York vid. Stat. 25 H. 8. c. 19. where the Clergy of England acknowledge that
the Convocations of the same Clergy are and always have been and ought to be assembled only by the Kings Writ The Convocation is under the power and Authority of the King 21 E. 3. 45. b. 12. After the Reign of King H. 8. this Supremacy in the Crown was signally exercised by King Ed. 6. styling himself Supream Head under Christ of the Church of England and Ireland in the Preface of his Injunctions given as well to all the Clergy as Laity of this Realm the Close whereof is as followeth viz. All which singular Injunctions the Kings Majesty ministreth unto his Clergy and their Successors and to all his loving Subjects straitly charging and commanding them to observe and keep the same upon pain of Deprivation Sequestration of Fruits or Benefices Suspension Excommunication and such other Coercion as to Ordinaries or others having Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction whom his Majesty hath appointed for the due execution of the same shall be seen convenient Charging and commanding them to see these Injunctions observed and kept of all persons being under their Jurisdiction as they will answer to his Majesty for the contrary And his Majesties pleasure is That every Justice of Peace being required shall assist the Ordinaries and every of them for the due execution of the said Injunctions 14. The Three first Articles to be enquired of at the Visitations within the Province of Canterbury in the second year of the Reign of the said King Edward the Sixth were as followeth viz. 1. Whether Parsons Vicars and Curates and every of them have purely and sincerely without colour or dissimulation four times in the year at the least preached against the Usurped power pretended Authority and Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome 2. Whether they have preached and declared likewise four times in the year at least that the Kings Majesties power authority and preheminence within his Realms and Dominions is the highest power under God 3. Whether any person hath by writing cyphring preaching or teaching deed or act obstinately holden and stand with to extol set-forth maintain or defend the authority jurisdiction or power of the Bishop of Rome or of his See heretofore claimed and usurped or by any pretence obstinately or maliciously invented any thing for the extolling of the same or any part thereof Likewise by the Articles of Religion agreed on by the Convocation held in London and published An. 1553. by the Authority of King Ed. 6. it is declared That the King of England is Supream Head in Earth next under Christ of the Church of England c. and that the Bishop of Rome hath no Jurisdiction in this Realm The like you have in the Articles of Religion agreed on by the Archbishops and Bishops of both Provinces and the whole Clergy in the Convocation held in London An. 1562. and published by the Authority of Queen Elizabeth That the Queens Majesty hath the chief Power in this Realm of England and other her Dominions unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil in all Causes doth appertain and is not nor ought to be subject to any Forreign Jurisdiction Which Articles being the Articles of the Church of England were afterwards ratified and confirmed by his Majesty King CHARLES I. of ever Blessed Memory by his Royal Declaration thereunto prefixed in which Declaration you have as followeth viz. That we are Supream Governour of the Church of England and that if any difference rise about the External Policy concerning the Injunctions Canons or other Constitutions whatsoever thereto belonging the Clergy in their Convocation is to order and settle them having first obtained leave under our Broad Seal so to do and We approving their said Ordinances and Constitutions provided that none bâ— made contrary to the Laws and Customes of the Land Likewise in the first of the aforesaid Injunctions of King Ed. 6. as also in the first of the Injunctions given by Q. Elizabeth concerning both the Clergy and Laity of this Realm published Ann. 1559. being the first year of her Reign it is enjoyned That all Deans Archdeacons Parsons Vicars and all other Ecclesiastical persons shall faithfully keep and observe c. all and singular Laws and Statutes made for the restoring to the Crown the ancient Jurisdiction over the State Ecclesiastical and abolishing of all Forreign power repugnant to the same c. By the Statute of 25 H. 8. c. 19. Appeals to Rome are prohibited and it is Ordained that in default of Justice in any of the Courts of the Archbishops of this Realm it shall be lawful to appeal to the King in his Court of Chancery and thereupon a Commission shall be granted c. And by a Proviso towards the end of that Statute an Appeal is given to the King in Chancery upon Sentences in places exempt in the same manner as was before used to the See of Rome And as by the said Statute there may be an Appeal to the King in Chancery when the Suit is in the Archbishops Court or some Peculiar exempt so in some Cases the Appeal may be to the King generally as he is Supream Head of all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction within the Realm for by the Statutes made in the time of King Hen. 8. the Crown was only remitted and restored to its Ancient Jurisdiction which had been usurped by the Bishop of Rome 33 Ed. 3. Fitz. Aid del Roy 103. Reges sacro oleo uncti Spiritualis Jurisdictionis sunt capaces Rex est Mixta persona cum Sacerdote Et causa Spiritualis Committi potest Principi Laico Cassan in Catal. glo mund p. 5. Consid 24. The King of England c. is Persona Sacra mixta cum Sacerdote and at his Coronation by a solemn Consecration and Unction becomes a Spiritual person Sacred and Ecclesiastical and then hath tam Vestem Dalmaticam as an emblem of his Royal Priesthood quam Coronam Regni in respect of his Regal power in Temporals and is Supream Governour in all Causes and over all Persons as well Ecclesiastical as Civil The King is Supream Ordinary by the Ancient Common Law of England before the Statute of 24 H. 8. cap. 12. for a Resignation might be made to him he might make a Grant of a Church to a man to hold to his own proper use he might not only exempt any Ecclesiastical person out of the Jurisdiction of the Ordinary but also give him Episcopal Jurisdiction he might Present to Free Chappels in default of the Dean by Lapse and that as Ordinary and in respect of his Supream Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction he might dispense with one not lawfully born to be a Priest albeit the Ecclesiastical Laws allowed within this Realm do prohibite it but the reason is for that it is not Malum in se but Malum prohibitum In a word All that the Pope was wont to do in such cases within this Realm as
Secular who within that Province whereof he is Archbishop hath next and immediately under the King Supream power Authority and Jurisdiction in all causes and things Ecclesiastical Of such there are only Two in England one of the Province of Canterbury styled Metropolitanus Primas Totius Angliae the other of York styled Primas Metropolitanus Angliae Under the two Archbishops are twenty six Bishopricks whereof twenty two in the Province of Canterbury and four in the Province of York so that besides the two Archbishops there are twenty four Bishops The Christian Religion in England took root first in the See of Canterbury St. Austin who first preached the Gospel to the one was the first Archbishop of the other Canterbury once the Royal City of the Kings of Kent was by King Ethelbert on his Conversion bestowed on St. Augustine the Archbishop and his Successors for ever and so the Chair thereof became originally fixed in that City of Canterbury Cantuarienses Archiepiscopi Dorovernenses antiquitus dicti sunt quia totius Anglicanae Ecclesiae Primates Metropolitani fuerunt The Archbishop whereof being styled Primate and Metropolitan of all England is the first Peer of the Realm and hath Precedency not only before all the Clergy of the Kingdom of England but also next and immediately after the Blood Royal before all the Nobility of the Realm Sr. Edward Cokâ— says more and lets us to understand That in Ancient time they had great Precedency even before the Brother of the King as appears by the Parliament Roll of 18 E. 1. and many others which continued until it was altered by Ordinance in Parliament in the Reign of H. 6. as appears by a Roll of Parliament of that Kings Reign entred in the Back of the Parliament Roll. The Precedency in Parliament and other Places of Council at this day is That the two Archbishops have the Precedency of all the Lords Temporal and every other Bishop in respect of his Barony hath place of all the Barons of the Realm and under the estate of the Viscount and other Superiour Dignities And at this day in all Acts Ordinances and Judgments c. of Parliament it is said The Lords Spiritual and Temporal The Bishops among themselves have this Precedency 1. The Bishop of London 2. The Bishop of Duresme 3. The Bishop of Winchester The Archbishop of Canterbury as he hath the Precedency of all the Nobility so also of all the great Officers of State He writes himself Divina Providentia whereas other Bishops only use Divina Permissione The Coronation of the Kings of England belongs to the Archbishop of Canterbury and it hath been formerly resolved that wheresoever the Court was the King and Queen were Speciales Domestici Parochiani Domini Archiepiscopi He had also heretofore this Priviledge of special remark That such as held â—ands of him were liable for Wardship to him and to compound with him for the same albeit they held other Lands in chief of our Sovereign Lord the King All the Bishopricks in England except Duresme Carlisle Chester and the Isle of Man which are of the Province of York are within the Province of Canterbury The Archbishop whereof hath also a peculiar Jurisdiction in thirteen Parishes within the City of London and in other Diocesses c. Having also an Ancient Priviledge That wherever any Mannors or Advowsons do belong to his See they forthwith become exempt from the Ordinary and are reputed Peculiars and of his Diocess of Canterbury If you consider Canterbury as the Seat of the Metropolitan it hath under it twenty one Suffragan Bishops whereof seventeen in England and four in Wales But if you consider it as the Seat of a Diocesan so it comprehends only some part of Kent viz. 257 Parishes the residue being in the Diocess of Rochester together with some other Parishes dispersedly scituate in several Diocesses it being as aforesaid an Ancient Priviledge of this See that the places where the Archbishop hath any Mannors or Advowsons are thereby exempted from the Ordinary and are become Peculiars of the Diocess of Canterbury properly belonging to the Jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Canterbury whose Provincial Dean is the Bishop of London whose Chancellour is the Bishop of Winchester whose Vice-Chancellour anciently was the Bishop of Lincoln whose Precentor the Bishop of Salisbury whose Chaplain the Bishop of Worcester and the Bishop of Rochester when time was carried the Cross before him Lind. Const de Poenis gl ibid. c. 1. ver tanquam 2. The Metropolitan See of York had its Original at the first reception of the Gospel in England when King Lucius established Sampson the first Archbishop thereof Not long after the Conversion of the Saxons Paulinus by Pope Gregory's appointment was made Archbishop thereof An. 622. This Province of York anciently claimed and had a Metropolitan Jurisdiction over all the Bishops of Scotland whence they had their Consecration and to which they swore Canonical Obedience The Archbishop of York styles himself Primate and Metropolitan of England as the Archbishop of Canterbury Primate and Metropolitan of All England About two hundred years since viz. An. 1466. when George Nevil was Archbishop of York the Bishops of Scotland withdrew themselves from their obedience to him and had Archbishops of their own The Archbishop of York hath precedency before all Dukes not being of the Blood Royal as also before all the Great Officers of State except the Lord Chancellour Of this Province of York are the Bishopricks of Duresme Chester Carlisle and the Isle of Man who write themselves Eboracenses or Eborum The Diocess belonging to this See of York contains the two Counties of York and Notingham and in them 581 Parishes whereof 336 are Impropriations 3. It hath been question'd whether there be any difference between Archbishop and Metropolitan the DD. herein seem to be divided some conceiving that there is some difference between them others affirming that they are both one the Canon Law seems in a sense to favour each of these Opinions saying in one place that the Archbishop as President hath the charge and oversight of the Metropolitans and other Bishops 21. Dist Cleros In another place That Archbishop and Metropolitan are but one and the same in deed and in truth although they differ in Name Wilhel in Clem. ult de Privileg verb. Archiepiscopo vers fin Metropolitanus Archiepiscopus idem sunt Sed Metropolitanus nomen trahit à numero Ecclesiarum viz. à metro mensura polis Civitas Otho glo in verb. Archiepiscopus De Offic. Archiepisc He is called Archiepiscopus quasi Princeps Episcoporum in respect of the other Bishops whereof he is chief and Metropolitanus in respect of the number of the Cities or Cathedral Churches where the Bishopricks are Lindw ubi supr gl ib. ver Metropolitanum For the word Civitas doth signifie with us as it doth in other Kingdoms such a Town
such a malign influence upon succeeding Princes in After-ages and other Kingdoms and also upon the Popes as some Historiographers do more than conjecture is not so evident as that which is reported by Ingulphus Abbot of Crowland touching Eight Churches to have been Appropriated to that Abbey by several Saxon Kings and though by their Charters yet whether by such exclusively to all Ecclesiastical Authority is not so certain as that William the Conqueror without asking leave of the Pope Appropriated three Parish-Churches to the Abbey of Battaile which he built in memory of his Conquest and his youngest Son H. 1. nigh twenty in one day to the Cathedral of Sarum by his Letters Patents together with the Tithes of those Parishes which his elder Brother William Sirnamed Rufus had depopulated and disecclesiated in New-Forrest in Hantshire Notwithstanding which the Pope who understood his Supremacy in matters Ecclesiastical better than to part with it upon any Presidents of Temporal Usurpations doth frequently in his Decretals without any contradiction rather assume than arrogate this Right unto himself as a Prerogative of the Apostolick See and granted to several Religious Orders this Priviledge of taking Ecclesiastical Benefices at Lay-mens hands by the mediation of the Diocesan who at a moderate and indifferent rate as one Moity of the Annual profits of the Benefice was to be a Medium or Expedient between the Religious House and the Incumbent but in process of time partly by the remisness of the Bishops in that point and partly by the Covetousness of the Monks and Friers in those days the Incumbents proportion became at last so inconsiderable that Pope Vrban the Fifth by his Legate Othobon about the year 1260 was forced to inhibit all the Bishops here in England from Appropriating any more Churches to any Monastery or othes Religious Houses save only in such cases where Charity might prevail in derogation of Law and under this Proviso also That the Bishops should assign a competent proprotion of the Parochial Fruits for the Maintenance of the Incumbent according to the annual value thereof in case the new Appropriators did it not within Six months next after such Appropriation but this Constitution not taking the effect expected a convenient Maintenance for the Vicar was otherwise provided for by Two Statutes the one made by R. 2. the other by his Successor H. 4. So that upon the whole it may be rationally inferr'd that these Appropriations originally came partly by the Act of Ecclesiasticks and partly by the Laity But what way soever they came this is and hath been held for Law within this Realm That albeit the Pope takes upon him to be Supream Ordinary yet no Appropriations made by him or by any Authority derived from him were ever allowed or approved of by the Laws of this Realm it being held That no Appropriations within this Realm can be made but by the King or by Authority derived from him and by his License and that all other Appropriations are void in Law An Appropriation may be by the King Sole where he is Patron but it may not be by the Patron Sole Grendon's Case in Plowden 17 E. 3. 39. An Appropriation cannot be without the King's License Ward 's Case Poph. Rep. Nor will the Objection hold against the King to say No man can make an Appropriation of any Church having Cure of Souls the same being a thing meerly Ecclesiastical and to be made by some Ecclesiastical person but he only who hath Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction for such Jurisdiction the King hath and is such a Spiritual person as may of himself Appropriate any Church or Advowson because in him resides the Ecclesiastical Power and Jurisdiction And therefore in a Case of Commendams it was long since held That an Appropriation made by the Pope could not be good without the King's License The like in a Case of Avoidance was vouched in Cawdrie's Case That the Entry into a Church by the Authority of the Pope only was not good and that he could not Appropriate a Church to Appropriatees to hold to their own use And in Gyendon's Case it was Resolved by the Justices That the Ordinary Patron and King ought to be assenting to every Appropriation and that the Authority which the Pope had usurped in this Realm was by Parliament 25 H. 8. acknowledged to be in the King who as Supream Ordinary may Appropriate without the Bishop's Assent 2. It seems therefore without any contradiction most evident That Appropriation or Impropriation at the Original thereof was when the Religious Houses of the Romish Church and the Religious persons as Abbots Priors and the like had the Advowson of any Parsonage to them and their Successors obtaining License of their Holy Father the Pope as also of Kings and of their Ordinaries that they and their Successors should from thenceforth be the Parsons thereof that it should thenceforth be a Vicarage and that a Vicar should serve the Cure So that at the beginning of this Spiritual Monopoly of Appropriations they were made only to such Spiritual persons as were qualified to Administer the Sacramental Ordinances and perform Divine Service Afterwards the Grant thereof was gradually enlarged and extended to Deans and Chapters though Bodies Politick and as such not capable of performing such Divine Services yea and which was most Ridiculous as well as Impious to Nunus which were Prioresses to some Nunnerics but not Female-Preachers as in these daies All which was under a Pretence of maintaining Hospitality and to supply all defects hereby occasioned there must be the Invention of a Vicar as the Appropriators Deputy to serve them and the Cure for which he had and hath the Tithe of Mint and Cummin and such other small ossals of Tithes as might be spared out of the weightier Granaries thereof without breach of the Laws of Hospitality thereby Sacrilegiously robbing the Church to enrich themselves Thus the poor Vicar shall have something like a certain portion of the Benefice whilst the Abbot and the Covent and their Lay-Successors shall be the Parsons and receive the main Profits and so live by the Altar without waiting on it and be Re-baptized by the Law with the name of Parsons Imparsonces This was that Anciently which we now call Appropriation which cannot be made to begin in the Parson's Life-time without his Assent and is so called because they hold the Profits ad proprium suum usum but if such Advowsons happen to be recovered by Ancient Title then and in such case the Appropriation of the Parsonage is annulled 3. So that from the Premisses it is evident That this Appropriation or Impropriation is an Annexation of an Ecclesiastical Benefice which originally was as it were in nullius Patrimonio to the proper and peculiar use and benefit of some Religious House Bishoprick Dean and Chapter Colledge c. Quod Divini juris est id nullius est in bonis Instit de
condemning the Heresies of Pelagius and Coelestius concerning the power of Mans Nature not supported by the Grace of God and Free Will of Man to do good of it self as also to inhibit Appeals to Bishops beyond Sea on pain of being secluded from the Communion of all African Bishops At Carthage in the year 402 under Honorius and Theodosius the Second a National Council of 217 Bishops was assembled which continued for the space of Six years The business of this Council was prevented by a Controversie happening between them and the Bishops of Rome who successively endeavoured but not successfully to perswade the African Bishops that they were under the Sovereignty and Jurisdiction of the Bishops of Rome to whom this Council would not allow of any Appeal from the Bishops of Africa At Bagaia in Africa about the year 433. certain Donatists to the Number of 310 assembled themselves in Council chiefly for the deposition of Maximinianus Bishop of Bagaia whom they Deposed and Accursed because he had renounced their Heresie and had recovered many others from the Error of that way At Ephesus in the year 434. and in the Eighth year of the Reign of Theodosius the Second by some called Theodosius the Younger was a General Council assembled against the Heretick Nestorius Bishop of Constantinople which Council consisted of above Two hundred Bishops by Command from the Emperour By which Council Nostorius for his Heresie in denying the Son of the Virgin Mary to be God and consequently the Personal Union of the Divine and Humane Nature of Christ was Banished to Oasis This was the first General Council of Ephesus promoted by Celestine the First wherein Two hundred Bishops as aforesaid condemned Nestorius together with Carisius his flattering Presbyter who instead of Two Natures acknowledged divers Persons in Christ and therefore pleaded that the Blessed Virgin Mary should be styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In this Council Cyrillus of Alexandria is recorded President whom Nestorius being piously and brotherly invited to a better Opinion proudly contemned and having craftily allured John of Antioch to his party Anathematiz'd him and the Council who had formerly Anathematiz'd him The matter being related to the Emperour and throughly understood Cyrillus and his are cleared but Nestorius with his party is Banished as aforesaid to Oasis a Sandy Habitation where like another Cain says a Modern Historian roving here and there Blaspheming at length his Tongue being consumed and eaten up by Worms he breathed out his last There are it seems two Copies of this Council the First observing Eight the Second Thirteen Canons which are comprehended in the Anathema's of Cyrillus The Massilianites termed also Euchites and Enthusiasts were condemned by this Council and thereby the integrity of the Nicene Creed confirmed At Ephesus under Theodosius the Second was likewise a Particular Council assembled by Flavianus Bishop of Constantinople who condemned Eutyches an Abbot of Constantinople for Affirming That in Christ after the Union of the Divine and Humane Natures there were no longer Two Natures which absurd Opinion Flavianus damned as Heretical So that the occasion of this Second Council of Ephisus An. 449. was this Eutyches an Archimandrite of Constantinople who after Manes and Apollinaris denied the Flesh of Christ to be like ours but affirmed that falling from heaven like the Rays of the Sun it penetrated the Virgins womb And so he denied that Two Natures were in Christ Incarnate but asserted that his Flesh was changed into his Divinity for which he was as aforesaid condemned by Flavianus Patriarch of Constantinople and Eusebius Bishop of Doril and others their Associates yet by the help of Chrysaphius the Eunuch and Eudoxia the Empress whom he had seduced he prevailed with Theodosius that the matter might be determined by a Famous Synod for which reason this at Ephesus by the Emperours Authority was called where 128 Bishops met Dioscorus of Alexandria being President one so full of Eutychianism that Eutyches is absolved and the reclaimers forced says the Historian to subscribe by Club-Arguments Flavianus opposing it was so suriously trodden upon that three days after he died besides many very Learned Bishops discharged of their Places yet not long after all this was dashed in pieces by the most Famous Council of Chalcedon At Berytus in Phoenicia was held a Council about this time where in the Cause of Ibas Bishop of Edessa whom Dioscorus had deposed was revived and himself justified and absolved At Agatha in France was a Council held wherein nothing was more remarkable than that they had liberty to meet together by the Command of Alaricus King of Gothes who at that time had the Sovereignty in that parr of France called Gallia Norbonensis whence it appears That Councils both General and National were in all Countreys Convened by the Authority of Sovereign Princes At Chalcedon in Bythinia in the year 455. and in the Fourth year of Marcianus the Emperour was a General Council at which was present in person the Emperour and 630 Bishops and Reverend Fathers from most parts of the World In this Council Dioscorns Bishop of Alexandria together with Eutyches and Juvenalis Bishops at Jerusalem was condemned as an Heretick for absolving the Heretick Eutyches in the Council at Ephesus and acting other Crimes whereof he was then accused In this Council it was Ordained That men should believe that the Natures of Christ albeit that they were united yet were they not confounded as Eutyches had Heretically affirmed Also in this Council it was Ordained That Anatelius Bishop of Constantinople and his Successors should have the chief Dignity next unto the Chair of Rome This Council was called by the said Emperour Martianus against the said Eutyches Abbot of Constantinople and his Champion Dioscorus of Alexandria the suppositious Acts of the Council held at Ephesus were condemned by this Council those of Ephesus being in favour of Eutyches who affirmed one only Nature to be in Christ viz. his Divine Nature after his Incarnation It is not clear or certain who was President of this Council of Chalcedon excepting the Emperour and Judges Moderators The matters thereof were for the most part by favouring parties between Leo the First of Rome and Anatholius Patriarch of Constantinople At Ravenna in the Sixth Century was a Council Assembled by occasion of the Schism happening on the Election of Symmachus to the See of Rome whose Competitor was Laurentius afterwards made Bishop of Nuceria In Symmachus his time were no less than Six Councils held at Rome all Convened by Authority of Theodoricus King of Gothes who then Reigned in Italy and all of little importance otherwise than the Endeavours that then were for the Supremacy whereat they aimed At Valentia in Spain were assembled Two Councils called Herdense and Valentinum both very obscure Councils there being in the one but Eight Bishops present
I do allow the Printing of this Book entituled An Abridgment of the Ecclesiastical Laws FRA NORTH Imprimatur hic Liber cui Titulus AN ABRIDGMENT OF THE. ECCLESIASTICAL LAWS Guil. Sill R. P. D. HENR Episc Lond à Sacris Dom. Repertorium Canonicum OR An Abridgment OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL LAWS OF THIS REALM Consistent with the TEMPORAL WHEREIN The most Material Points relating to such Persons and Things as come within the Cognizance thereof are succinctly Treated Principio Comperto facile est adjicere Reliquum Cooptare Tho. Cana. in Proaem Decret nu 3. T. 1. By JOHN GODOLPHIN LL. D. LONDON Printed by S. Roycroft for Christopher Wilkinson at the Black Boy against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet 1678. THE Introduction THE Question which King Henry the Eighth did once put to both the Universities of this Realm viz. An aliquid Authoritatis in hoc Regno Angliae Pontifici Romano de jure competat plusquam alii cuicunque Episcopo Extero being Resolved in the Negative and that Resolution ratified in the Convocation An. 1534. an Act of Parliament passed about two years after for the extinguishing of that Papal Authority in this Realm This succceded so well in consequence of what the Convocation An. 1530. had before acknowledged him viz. The Supream Head on Earth of the Church of England that that Supremacy was likewise after confirmed by Act of Parliament to him his Heirs and Successors This is that Supremacy here tenderly touch'd at in the first Chapter of the ensuing Abridgment and without which all that follows would be but insignificant and disfigured Cyphers When King Henry the Eighth was thus both Parliamentarily and Synodically invested herewith although it was with all the Priviledges and Preheminences incident thereto yet no more accrued to the Crown thereby than was legally inherent in it before yet in regard of the Usurpations that in divers Kings Reigns had successively invaded the Rights of the Crown in that most splendent Jewel thereof another Convocation in An. 1532. to give the King as it were Livery and Seisin of the said Supremacy promised him in verbo Sacerdotii That they would not from thenceforth Assemble in any Convocation or Synod without his Majesty's Writ nor make any Canons or Constitutions without his License and consent nor execute the same until they were Ratified under the Great Seal of England All which was done without the least diminution of any Archiepiscopal or Episcopal Power or Priviledges in the free exercise of that Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction which they anciently enjoyed The whole of this Design being only to eject the Roman Pontifex and annul his Usurpation in a matter of that weighty Consequence to which the Crown was so undoubtedly Entituled And this only in a way consonant to that Allegiance which every Subject without distinction owes to his lawful Sovereign in all matters as well Ecclesiastical as Civil within his Majesty's Realms and Dominions whereby the Clergy as well as Laity being all Subjects alike might be reduced not only to their Primitive Obedience unto but also to their Dependance on their own Sovereign in preference to any Forein Potentate whatever That the Supream Civil Power is also Supream Governour over all Persons and in all Causes Ecclesiastical is a Rule says the Learned Bishop Taylor of such great necessity for the conduct of Conscience as that it is the measure of determining all Questions concerning the Sanction of Obedience to all Ecclesiastical Laws the duty of Bishops and Priests to their Princes the necessity of their paying Tribute and discharging the burthens and relieving the necessities of the Republick It was never known says the same Author in the Primitive Church that ever any Ecclesiastical Law did oblige the Catholick Church unless the Secular Prince did establish it The Nicene Canons became Laws by the Rescript of the Emperour Constantine says Sozomen When the Council of Constantinople was finished the Fathers wrote to the Emperour Theodosius and petitioned Vt Edicto Pietatis tuae confirmetur Synodi sententia The confirmation of the Canon and Decrees of the great Council at Ephesus by the Emperour is to be seen at the end of the Acts of the Synod And Marcian the Emperour wrote to Palladius his Prefect a Letâ—er in which he testifies that he made the Decrees of the Council of Chalcedon to become Laws Ea quae de Christiana fide à Sacerdotibus qui Chalcedone â—convenerunt per nostra Praecepta Statuta sunt c. Thus also the Fathers of the Fifth General Synod petitioned Justinian to confirm and establish their Canons into a Law The same Prince also Published a Novel in which he commands Vim Legum obtinere Ecclesiasticos Canones à quatuor Synodis Nicena Constantinopolitana prima Ephesina prima Chalcedonensi expositos confirmatos Vid. Concil Tolet. All which confirms it for a Truth That even in the Primitive Church the Supremacy in matters Ecclesiastical was in the Supream Secular Prince Touching Archbishops our Malmesbury confesses that in the Ancienter times of the Britains it was unknown where the Archbishoprick was At the Council of Arles An. 314. Silvester the Pope is but plain Bishop as appears by the Nomenclature of those that were at that Council The High Title of Archbishop was for a long time in use in the Eastern Church before it came into the West For whereas our Beda tells us That Augustine was Ordained Archbishop of the English Nation by Etherius Archbishop of Arles aforesaid he therein follows the mode of speaking current in his own times for Gregory the then Pope in his several Letters written to them affords neither of them that Title no not when he bestows the Pall upon Augustine and gives him the precedency and priority in respect of York and all other Bishops of Britain Yet the incomparable B. Vsher affirms that they did not quite deny Archbishops among the Old Britains for he proves they had such but that all Memorials were lost where the Archiepiscopal or Patriarchal Seat resided For although London hath been for many Ages the Chiefest of Britain and was no less than 1300 years since reputed Vetus Oppidum and Augusta yet a Modern Writer of great Learning and Authority would have York as the more Ancient Metropolis of the Diocess of the Britains and that not only because it was a Roman Colony which London was not as Onuphrius contrary to so great and plain Authority of Tacitus doth affirm but also for that the Emperours Palace and Praetorium likewise Tribunal or chief Seat of Judgment was there whence by the Old Historian Spartianus it was called Civitas by way of excellency It must be acknowledg'd that the very Original of things are to us much clouded in obscurity and uncertainty yet he that duly consults Antiquity will find That what Radulphus de Diceto writes touching the Original of Episcopacy and Archiepiscopacy in Britain seems to have
tradehant The Seventh was at Nice under Constantine and his Mother Irene where 367 Bishops were assembled against the Adversaries of Images whom they subjected to their Anathema 2 Of Particular Synods one was held in the Temple of the Apostles in Constantinople under the Patriarch Photius which was called the First and Second Another under Leo and Constantine in the most Famous Temple Sanctae Dei Sapientiae or Sanctae Sophiae which confirmed the Seventh Synod Another at Ancyra more ancient than the first Universal Synod Another at Caesarea more ancient than that at Ancyra Another at Gangra after the Nicene against Eustachius who despised Marriage and taught things not consonant to Ecclesiastical Tradition Another at Antioch a City in Syria where in truth were two Synods the one under Aurelianus against Paulus Samosatenus who said that Christ was meer Man the other under Constantius Son to Constantine the Great Another at Laodicea scituate in Phrygia Pacatiana Another at Sardica that when Constantius embraced the foresaid Sect his Brother Constans Emperour of Old Rome by his Letters threatning him with a War if he would not desist from perverting the Church his Answer was That he sought no other Doctrine than what was most agreeable to the Catholick Faith whereupon by their and the Bishop of Romes appointment 341 Bishops were Conven'd in a Synod which having established the power and authority of the Nicene Synod did constitute divers Canons for the Church Another at Carthage under Theodosius where 217 Bishops were assembled and with them the Popes Vicegerents this Carthage was part of Charchedon and that a Province of Africa 3 The Canons of the Fathers are taken according to the Roman computation out of the Epistles partly of Dionysius Alexandrinus partly of Petrus Alexandrinus partly of the Wonder-working Gregorius partly also out of the Epistles of Bazil or Basilius the Great partly out of the Epistle of Gregory or Gregorius Nyssenus to the B. of Melita partly out of the Responses of Timotheus Alexandrinus partly out of the Responses of the Constantinopolitan Synod to certain Monks Nicholaus the Patriarch being President partly out of the Epistles of Cyril or Cyrillus and partly out of the Epistles of Nicephorus the Patriach 4 The Canons of the Holy Apostles a book falsly ascribed to the Apostles are in number Eighty Five according to a modest Computation if you have any Faith to spare at least enough to believe the Church of Rome in that as in other Points infallible But the Canons indeed of the Apostles which are of Order and External Government do oblige as Dr. Taylor says the Conscience by being accepted in several Churches not by their first Institution and were fitted only to Times and Places and present Necessities For says he the Apostolical Decree of Abstaining from Blood was observed by more Churches than those of Syria and Cilicia to which the Canon was directed and the Colledge of Widows or Deaconesses derived it self into the manners of the Western Churches And the Apostles in their first Preaching and Conversation in Jerusalem instituted a coenobitick life and had all things in Common with Believers indeed no man was obliged to it Of the same nature were their Canons Counsels and Advices The Canon concerning Widows Let not a Widow be chosen under 60 years and yet Justinian suffered one of 40 years old to be chosen Novel 123. c. 12 13. And the Canon of the Apostles forbidding to eat things strangled is no where observed in the Western Churches of Christendom In the beginning of the Fourth Century above 1300 years since we find our Bishops British Bishops at the Councils of Arles Nice Sardis and Ariminum a clear Evidence of the flourishing state of Christianity so long since in this Island At Arles in France conven'd touching the Donatists appeared for the Britains Eborius Bishop of York Restitutus Bishop of London Adelfius Bishop of the City called the Colony of London which some suppose to be Colchester others Maldon in Essex Sacerdos a Priest both by Name and Office Arminius a Deacon An. 313. At the Synod of Nice in Bithynia An. 325. to suppress Arrianism were British Bishops present as Athanasius and Hilary Bishop of Poictiers affirm At the Council of Sardis in Thracia conven'd by Constanitus and Constans Sons to Constantine the Great the British Bishops were likewise present when the Arrians were condemn'd and Athanasius acquitted And at the Council of Ariminum in Italy the British Bishops were also present who according to Athanasius were about An. 360. summoned to divers Forein Councils in remote parts As also here at home in and after the Seventh Century were divers particular Councils and Synods the first whereof according to Stapleton out of Bede called The first of the English Nation was conven'd at Hertford by Theodorus Archbishop of Canterbury who succeeded Deusdedit in that See in this Council the Observation of Easter was settled according to the Romish Rite yet whosoever will have this Council to be as aforesaid The first of the English Nation must understand it the First whose Canons are compleatly extant Bede lib. 4. c. 5. About the year 740 Ethelbald King of Mercia with Cuthbert Archbishop of Canterbury called a Council at Cliffe in Kent the acts of which Synod were 31 Canons among which is was inter alia Ordain'd That Prayers should publickly be made for Kings and Princes But some few years before this the said Theodorus held a Synod or Council of Bishops at Hatfield by authority whereof he divided the Province of Mercia which Sexwolphus then governed alone into five Bishopricks viz. to Chester Worcester Lichfield Cedema in Lindsey and to Dorchester In the year 692 a great Council was held at Becanceld by Withred King of Kent and Bertuald Archbishop of Britain wherein many things were concluded in favour of the Church About the same time a Council was held at Berghamsteed by the said Withred King of Kent at which Council Bishop Wilfrid was restored to York whence he departed for Rome upon the endeavours which Theodorus Archbishop of Canterbury had used to have that Diocess of York divided In the year 801 Ethelard the Archbishop called a Synod at Clivesho in Kent where by power from the Pope he rivited that 's the word the Archbishoprick into the City of Canterbury There was likewise at Celichyth an eminent Council under Wolphred who succeeded Ethelard Archbishop of Canterbury But nigh one hundred years before this viz. about the year 709 a Synod was assembled at Alncester in Worcestershire to promote the building of Evesham-Abbey And not long after another Synod was called at London to introduce the Doctrine of Image-Worship into England now first beginning to appear in the publick practice thereof Also above one hundred years before that viz. about the year 601. Augustine by the aid of Ethelbert King of Kent called a Council of Saxon and British Bishops to meet in the Confines of the Mercians and
West-Saxons in the borders of Worcester and Herefordshire under an Oak thereby tacitly reproving the Idolatry of the Pagan Britains who acted their Superstitions under an Oak as the Learned Sr. H. Spelman observes In the Tenth Century King Edward the Elder Son of King Alfred called a Synod at Intingford where he confirmed the same Ecclesiastical Constitutions which King Alured had made before Many Councils were Conven'd during the Reign of King Athelstan as at Exiter Feversham Thunderfield London and at Great Lea which last is of most account in regard of the Laws therein made specially that concerning the payment of Tithes the which you may peruse in the Learned Sr. H. Spelm. Concil p. 405. During the Reign of King Edgar Hoel Dha held a National Council for all Wales at Tyquin which was wholly in favour of the Clergy this Council was held when Dunst in was Archbishop of Canterbury in whose time there were Two other Councils conven'd the one at Cartlage in Cambridgshire the other at Caln in Wiltshire After this William the Conqueror conven'd a Council of his Bishops at Winchester wherein himself was personally present with two Cardinals sent from Rome in this Council Stigand Archbishop of Canterbury was deposed and Lâ—â—frank a Lombard substituted in his room During the Reign of King Henry the First Anselm Archbishop of Canterbury summoned a Council at Westminster which Excommunicated all Married Priests half the Clergy at that time being Married or the Sons of Married Priests During the Reign of King Stephen Albericus Bishop of Hostia sent by Pope Innocent into England conven'd a Synod at Westminster wherein it was concluded That no Priest c. should have a Wife or a Woman in his house on pain of being sent to Hell Also that their Transubstantiated God should dwell but Eight days in the Box for fear of being Worm-eaten or moulded Under the Reign of King Henry the Second who disclaimed the Popes authority refused to pay Peter-pence and interdicted all Appeals to Rome a Synod was called at Westminster wherein was a great Contest between the two Archbishops of Canterbury and York for Precedency York appeals to Rome the Pope interposes and to end old Divisions makes a new distinction entituling York Primate of England and Canterbury Primate of all England Under the Reign of King Henry the Third a Council was held at Oxford under Stephen Langton Archbishop of Canterbury wherein many Constitutions were made as against Excess of demands for Procurations in Visitations against Pluralities Non-Residence and other abuses of the Clergy In the Ninth year of King Edward the First John Peckham Archbishop of Canterbury held a Council at Lambeth with his Suffragans some account whereof Walsingham gives us in these words viz. Frater Johannes Peckham Cantuariensis Archiepiscopus ne nihil fecisse videretur convocat Concilium apud Lambeth in quo non Evangelii Regni Dei praedicationem imposuit sed Constitutiones Othonis Ottobonis quondam Legatorum in Anglia innovans jussit eas ab omnibus servari c. Walsing in Ed. 1. He then made Sixteen Ecclesiastical Laws which are inserted among the Provincial Constitutions After this he summoned another Council of his Clergy at Reading wherein he propounded the drawing of all Causes concerning Advowsons to the Ecclesiastical Courts and to cut off all Prohibitions from the Temporal Courts in Personal Causes but upon the Kings express Command to desist from it this Council was dissolved Parker de Antiq. Eccles Anglic. fo 205. An 1290. During the Reign of King Henry the Fourth Thomas Arundel Archbishop of Canterbury conven'd a Synod at St. Pauls Church Lond. wherein the King joyned with them in punishing all Opposers of the Religion received Trussel de vita H. 4. Under King Henry the Fifth an Universal Synod of all the Bishops and Clergy was called at London where it was determined That the day of St. George and also of St. Dunstan should be a double Feast in holy Church In the same Kings Reign was a Convocation held at London conven'd by Henry Chichley Archbishop of Canterbury wherein were severe Constitutions made against the Lollards In the Reign of King Henry the Seventh a Synod was held at London by John Morton Archbishop of Canterbury to redress the Excess of the London Clergy in Apparel and frequenting of Taverns We had almost omitted the Synod in England An. 1391. under the Reign of King Richard the Second Simon Sudbury then Archbishop of Canterbury in which Synod it was Ordain'd That whosoever Appealed to Rome besides Excommunication should lose all his Goods and be Imprisoned during his Life vid. Hist of the Church of Great Britain p. 117. A Modern and Ingenious yet unfortunate Author well observes a Fourfold difference or distinction of Synods or Convocations in this Realm in reference to the several manners of their Meeting and degrees of their Power The First he states in point of Time before the Conquest The Second since the Conquest and before the Statute of Praemunire The Third after that Statute but before another made in the Reign of King H. 8. The Fourth after the 25th of the said King 1 Before the Conquest the Popes power prevailed not over the Kings of England who were then ever present Personally or Virtually at all Councils wherein matters both of Church and State were debated and concluded Communi consensu tam Cleri quam Populi Episcoporum Procerum Comitum nec non omnium Sapientum Seniorum populorumque totius Regni 2 After the Conquest but before the Statute of Praemunire the Archbishops used upon all emergent Cases toties quoties at their own discretions to assemble the Clergy of their respective Provinces where they pleased continuing and dissolving them at their pleasure which they then did without any leave from the King whose Canons and Constitutions without any further Ratifification were in that Age obligatory to all subjected to their Jurisdiction Such it seems were all the Synods from Lanfranck to Thomas Arundel Archbishop of Canterbury in which Arundels time the Statute of Praemunire was Enacted 3 After which Statute which much restrained the Papal power and subjected it to the Laws of the Land the Archbishops called no more Convocations by their sole and absolute Command but at the pleasure of the King by whose Writ and Precept only they were now and henceforth Summoned Of this Third sort of Convocations were all those kept by and from Thomas Arundel unto Thomas Cranmer or from the 16th of R. 2. unto the 25th of King H. 8. These Convocations also did make Canons as in Lindwoods Constitutions which were Obligatory although confirmed by no other Authority than what was meerly Synodical 4 The last sort of Convocations since the said Statute called the 25th of King H. 8. That none of the Clergy should presume to attempt alledge claim or put in ure any Constitutions or Ordinances Provincial or Synodals or any â—â—her Canons Constitutions or Ordinances Provincial by
Provisions Appeals to Rome holding Plea of Spiritual things thence arising Excommunications by his Bulls and the like were no other than Usurpations and Encroachments on the Dignity and Prerogative Royal. 14. In the Reign of King H. 8. An. 1539. the Abbots of Colchester Reading and Glastenbury were condemned and executed under colour so the Author expresses it of denying the Kings Supremacy and their rich Abbies seized on as Confiscations to the use of the King But when the Act of Supremacy came to be debated in the time of Queen Elizabeth it seemed a thing strange in Nature and Polity That a Woman should be declared to be the Supream Head on Earth of the Church of England but the Reformed party not so much contending about Words and Phrases as aiming to oust the Pope of all Authority within these Dominions fixed the Supream power over all Persons and Estates of what rank soever in the Crown Imperial not by the Name of Supream Head but tantamount of the Supream Governess In Queen Mary 's time there was an Act of Parliament made declaring That the Regal power was in the Queens Majesty as fully as it had been in any of her Predecessors In the body whereof it is expressed and declared That the Law of the Realm is and ever hath been and ought to be understood That the Kingly or Regal Office of the Realm and alâ— Dignities Prerogatives Royal Power Preheminences Priviledges Authorities and Jurisdictions thereunto annexed united or belonging being invested either in Male or Female are be and ought to be as fully wholly absolutely and entirely deemed adjudged accepted invested and taken in the one as in the other So that whatsoever Statute or Law doth limit or appoint that the King of this Realm may or shall have execute and do any thing as King c. the same the Queen being Supream Governess Possessor and Inheritor to the Imperial Crown of this Realm may by the same power have and execute to alâ— intents constructions and purposes without doubt ambiguity question or scruple any Custome use or any other thing to the contrary notwithstanding By the tenor of which Act made in Queen Mary 's Reign is granted to Queen Elizabeth as much Authority in all the Church-Concernments as had been eâ—ercised and enjoyed by King H. 8. and King Ed. 6. according to any Act or Acts of Parliament in their several times Which Acts of Parliament as our learned Lawyers on these occasions have declared were not to be considered as Introductory of a new power which was not in the Crown before but only Declaratory of an old which naturally belonged to all Christian Princes and amongst others to the Kings and Queens of the Realm of England And whereas some Seditious persons had dispersed a rumour that by the Act for recognizing the Queens Supremacy there was something further ascribed unto the Queen her Heirs and Successors viz. a power of administring Divine Service in the Church which neither by any equity or true sense of the words could from thence be gathered she thereupon makes a Declaration to all her Subjects That nothing was or could be meant or intended by the said Act than was acknowledged to be due to King H. 8. and King Ed. 6. And further declared That she neither doth nor will challenge any other Authority by the same than was challenged and lately used by the said Two Kings and was of Ancient time due unto the Imperial Crown of this Realm that is under God to have the Sovereignty and Rule over all persons born within her Realms and Dominions of what estate either Ecclesiastical or Temporal soever they be so as no other Forreign Power shall or ought to have any Superiority over them Which Declaration published in the Queens Injunctions An. 1559. not giving that general satisfaction to that groundless Cavil as was expected and intended the Bishops and Clergy in their Convocation of the year 1562. by the Queens Authority and Consent declared more plainly viz. That they gave not to their Princess by vertue of the said Act or otherwise either the ministring of Gods Word or Sacraments but that only Prerogative which they saw to have been given always to all godly Princes in holy Scripture by God himself that is to say that they should Rule all Estates and Degrees committed to their charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal and restrain with the Civil Sword the stubborn and evil doers And lastly to conclude this tender point There is in the said Act for the better exercising and enjoying of the Jurisdiction thus recognized to the Crown an Oath as aforesaid for the acknowledgment and defence of this Supremacy not only in the Queen but also her Heirs and Successors Likewise a power given to the Queen her Heirs and Successors by Letters Patents under the Great Seal of England To Assign and Authorize c. as she and they shall think fit such Persons being natural born Subjects to exercise use and occupy under her and them all manner of Jurisdictions Priviledges and Preheminencies in any wise touching or concerning any Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction within the Realms of England and Ireland or any other her Highness Dominions or Countries and to visit reform repress order correct and amend all such Errors Heresies Schisms Abuses Offences Contempts and Enormities whatsoever which by any manner of Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Power Authority or Jurisdiction or can or may lawfully be reformed ordered redressed corrected restrained or amended to the pleasure of Almighty God c. This was the Foundation of the High-Commission Court and from hence issued that Commission by which the Queens Ministers proceeded in their Visitation in the First year of her Majesties Reign CHAP. II. Of Archbishops 1. A Description of that Dignity here in England the Antiquity Precedency Priviledges and Style of the Archbishop of Canterbury with the Precincts of that See 2. The Antiquity Precedency and Style of the Archbishop of York with the Precincts of that See 3. What difference between Archbishop and Metropolitan and why called Metropolitan 4. Three Archbishops in England and Wales Anciently 5. The vicissitudes of the Christian Religion Anciently in this Island of Great Britain 6. How the Third Archbishop came to be lost 7. The great Antiquity of an Archbishop in London 8. The Original of the Style Primate and Metropolitan 9. What the difference Anciently between the Two Archbishopricks of Canterbury and York certain Priviledges of the latter 10. Whether an Archbishop may call Cases to his own cognizance nolente Ordinario 11. In what Case the Clerk is to be Instituted by the Archbishop where the Inferiour Ordinary hath right to Collate Also his power of Dispensations 12. A Case at Common Law relating to the Archbish Jurisdiction 13. Certain special Priviledges of the Archbishop of Canterbury 1. ARCHBISHOP ab Archos Princeps Episcopus Superintendens is that Spiritual person
complaint thereof made to the Pope the Answer was That any man might be Cited to the Arches out of any Diocess in England Also That the Archbishop may hold his Consistory in any Diocess within his Jurisdiction and Province That the Archbishop hath concurrent Jurisdiction in the Diocess of every Bishop as well as the Archdeacon and That the Archbishop of Canterbury prescribes to hold Plea of all persons in England But as to his power of having a Consistory in the Diocess of every Bishop this was in this Case denied but only where he was the Popes Legate whereof there were Three sorts 1. Legates à Latere and these were Cardinals which were sent à Latere from the Pope 2. A Legate born and these were the Archbishops of Canterbury York and Mentz c. 3. A Legate given and these have Authority by special Commission from the Pope Likewise in the Case of Jones against Boyer C. B it was also said by Dr. Martyn That the Archbishop hath Ordinary Jurisdiction in all the Diocesses of his Province and that this is the cause that he may Visit 13. The Archbishop of Canterbury Anciently had Primacy as well over all Ireland as England from whom the Irish Bishops received their Consecration for Ireland had no other Archbishop until the year 1152. For which reason it was declared in the time of the Two first Norman Kings That Canterbury was the Metropolitan Church of England Scotland and Ireland and the Isles adjacent the Archbishop of Canterbury was therefore sometimes styled a Patriarch and Orbis Britannici Pontifex insomuch that Matters recorded in Ecclesiastical Affairs did run thus viz. Anno Pontificatus Nostri primo secundo c. He was also Legatus Natus that is he had a perpetual Legantine power annext to his Archbishoprick nigh a thousand years since And at General Councils he had the Precedency of all other Archbishops abroad and at home he had some special Marks of Royalty as to be the Patron of a Bishoprick as he was of Rochester to coyn Mony to make Knights and to have the Wardships of all those who held Lands of him Jure Hominii although they held in Capite other â—ands of the King as was formerly hinted He is said to be Inthroned when he is invested in the Archbishoprick And by the Stat. of 25 H 8. he hath power to grant Licenses and Dispensations in all Cases heretofore sued for in the Court of Rome not repugnant to the Law of God or the Kings Prerogative As also to allow a Clerk to hold a Benefice in Commendam or in Trust to allow a Clerk rightly qualified to hold Two Benefices with Cure of Souls to allow a Beneficed Clerk for some certain causes to be non-Resident for some time and to Dispense in several other Cases prohibited by the Letters of the Canon Law Likewise the Archbishop of Canterbury Consecrates other Bishops confirms the Election of Bishops within his Province calls Provincial Synods according to the Kings Writ to him ever directed is chief Moderator in the Synods and Convocations he Viâ—its the whole Province appoints a Guardian of the Spiritualties during the vacancy of any Bishoprick within his Province whereby all the Episcopal Ecclesiastical Rights of that Diocess for that time belong to him all Ecclesiastical Jurisdictions as Visitations Institutions c. He may retain and qualifie Eight Chaplains which is more by Two than any Duke is allowed by Statute to do and hath power to hold divers Courts of Judicature for the decision of Controversies pertaining to Ecclesiastical Cognizance CHAP. III. Of Bishops and Ordinaries 1. Bishop Why so called Not above One to be in one Diocess 2. Why called Ordinary and what the Pallium Episcopale is 3. Bishopricks originally Donative Kings of England the Founders thereof 4. The manner of Election of Bishops their Confirmation and Consecration 5. Their Seals of Office in what cases they may use their own Seals 6. What follows upon Election to make them Bishops compleat the grant of their Temporalties 7. The Conge d'eslire and what follows thereupon 8. Bishopricks were Donative till the time of King John 9. What the Interest and Authority is in his several capacities 10. Episcopal Authority derived from the Crown 11. The Vse and Office of Suffragan Bishops 12. Whether a Bishop may give Institution out of his own proper Diocess and under other Seal than his own Seal of Office 13. Several things incident to a Bishop qua talis 14. Ordinary what properly he is and why so called 15. In what cases the Ordinaries Jurisdiction is not meerly Local 16. The Ordinaries power de jure Patronatûs 17. Whether the Ordinary may cite a man out of his own Diocess Also his Right ad Synodalia 18. The Ordinaries power of Visitation 19. The Dignity and true Precedency of the Bishops in England 20. Temporal Jurisdiction anciently exercised by Bishops in this Realm the Statute of 17 Car. 1. against it Repealed and they Restored to it by the Stat. of 13 Car. 2. as formerly 21. The Act made in the Reign of Ed. 6. concerning the Election of Bishops the Endeavours thereby to take away Episcopal Jurisdiction the Nomination of all Bishops was Anciently Sole in the King 22. The Bishops of London are Deans of the Episcopal Colledge 23. A Case at Common Law touching a Lease made by one Bishop during the life of another of the same Diocess in Ireland 1. BISHOP Episcopus from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 supra and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 intendere an Overseer or Superintendent so called from that watchfulness care charge and faithfulness which by his Place and Dignity he hath and oweth to the Church A word which all Antiquity hath appropriated to signifie the Chief in Superintendency over the whole Church within his Diocess wherein are divers inferiour Pastors This Oversight or Care the Hebrews call Pekudah Of this Office or Ecclesiastical Dignity there can be but one at a time in one and the same Diocess whence it is that Cornelius Bishop of Rome as Eusebius relates upbraided Novatius for his ignorance in that point when he could not but know there were no less than 46 Presbyters in that Church Oecumenius and St. Chrysostome affirming also as many at Philippi For in this restrained sense as the word Bishop is now taken it cannot be imagined that there should be more than one in one City or Diocess at the same time consonant whereunto the Synod of Nice prohibited Two or more Bishops to have their Seats at once in the same City This Novatius aforesaid was a Priest of Rome 254 years after Christ he abhorred Second Marriages and was condemned as an Heretick in a Synod at Rome the same year Every Bishop many Centuries after Christ was universal Incumbent of his Diocess received all the Profits which were but Offerings of Devotion out of which he paid the Salaries of such as Officiated under himâ—
next in precedency hath been a Count Palatine about six or seven hundred years and hath at this day the Earldom of Sadberg long since annexed to this Bishoprick by the King Note a President hath been shewed at Common Law That the Bishop of Durham imprisoned one for a Lay-Cause and the Archbishop of York as his Sovereign cited him to appear before him to answer for that Imprisonment and the Archbishop was fined four thousand Marks Cro. par 1. The Bishop of Winchester was anciently reputed Earl of Southampton All the other Bishops take place according to the Seniority of their Consecration unless any Bishop happen to be made Lord Chancellor Treasurer Privy Seal or Secretary of State which anciently was very usual All the Bishops of England are Barons and Peers of the Realm have place in the Upper house of Parliament as also in the Upper house of Convocation The Bishopricks were erected into Baronies by William the Conqueror at his coming into England And as a special remark of Honour Three Kings viz. of England Scotland and South-Wales in the year 1200. did contribute their Royal shoulders for the conveyance of the deceased Corps of Hugh Bishop of Lincoln to his Grave And no wonder when Princes themselves and such as were of the Blood Royal were anciently Bishops in this Kingdom they have been not only of the best Nobility but divers of the Sons and Brothers of several English Kings since the Conquest and before have entred into Holy Orders and became Ecclesiasticks as at this day is practicable in the most of all other Monarchies throughout the whole Christian World Ethelwolph Son and Successor to Egbert first Sole King of England was in Holy Orders and Bishop of Winchester at his Fathers death Odo Brother to William the Conqueror was Bishop of Bayeux in Normandy Henry de Blois Brother to King Stephen was Bishop of Winchester Geofry Plantagenet Son to King Henry the Second was Bishop of Lincoln And Henry de Beauford Brother to King Henry the Fourth was Bishop also of Winchester 20. The Statute of 17 Car. 1. cap. 27. for disinabling persons in Holy Orders to exercise Temporal Jurisdiction or Authority being Repealed as aforesaid by the Statute of 13 Car. 2. cap. 2. they are thereby restored to the exercise of Temporal Jurisdiction as formerly which indeed is no more than what they ever Anciently exercised in this Kingdom For Ex Clero Rex semper sibi eligebat Primos à Consiliis Primos ad Officia Regni obeunda Primi igitur sedebant in omnibus Regni Comitiis Tribunalibus Episcopi in Regali quidem Palatio cum Regni Magnatibus in Comitatu una cum Comite in Turno cum Vice-comite in Hundredo cum Domino Hundredi sic ut in promovenda Justitia usquequaque gladii gladium adjuvaret nihil inconsulto Sacerdote vel Episcopo ageretur This Union of Persons Authority and Courts of Judicature Ecclesiastical and Civil as Mr. Selden proves continued above Four thousand years till Pope Nicholas the First about the Eighth Century to exclude the Emperour from medling in the Ecclesiastical Government began to exclude the Clergy from medling with the Civil And for the space of four or five hundred years during the Reign of the Saxon Kings in England the Ecclesiastical and Secular Magistrates sate joyntly together determining Ecclesiastical Affairs in the Morning and Secular or Civil Affairs in the Afternoon so that in those days as there was no clashing of Jurisdictions so no complaint touching Prohibitions but an unanimous harmony in a kind of Joynt-Jurisdiction in reference to all Ecclesiastical and Civil Affairs until William the Conqueror did put a distinction between Church and State in a more divided way than formerly had been practiced Also the excellent Laws made by King Ina King Athelstan King Edmund and St. Edward the Confessor from whom we have our Common Laws and our Priviledges mentioned in Magna Charta were all made by the perswasions and advice of Archbishops and Bishops named in our Histories 21. That which during the Reign of King Edw. 6. made the greatest alteration and threatned most danger to the State Ecclesiastical was the Act entituled An Act for Election and what Seals and Styles shall be used by Spiritual persons c. In which it was ordained That Bishops should be made by the Kings Letters Patents and not by the Election of the Deans and Chapters That all their Processes and Writings should be made in the Kings Name only with the Bishop's Teste added to it and sealed with no other Seal than the Kings or such as should be Authorized and Appointed by him In the compounding of which Act there was more danger as Dr. Heylin observes couched than at first appeared For by the last Branch thereof it was plain and evident says he that the intent of the Contrivers was by degrees to weaken the Authority of the Episcopal Order by forcing them from their strong hold of Divine Institution and making them no other than the Kings Ministers only or as it were his Ecclesiastical Sheriffs to execute his Will and disperse his Mandates And of this Act such use was made though possibly beyond the true intention of it that as the said Dr. Heylin observes the Bishops of those Times were not in a Capacity of conferring Orders but as they were thereunto impowred by special License The Tenour whereof if Sanders be to be believed was in these words following viz. The King to such a Bishop Greeting Whereas all and all manner of Jurisdiction as well Ecclesiastical as Civil flows from the King as from the Supream Head of all the Body c. We therefore give and grant to thee full power and License to continue during our good pleasure for holding Ordination within thy Diocess of N. and for promoting fit persons unto Holy Orders even to that of the Priesthood Which being looked on by Queen Mary not only as a dangerous diminution of the Episcopal Power but as an odious Innovation in the Church of Christ she caused this Act to be Repealed in the first year of her Reign leaving the Bishops to depend on their former claim and to act all things which belonged to their Jurisdiction in their own Names and under their own Seals as in former times In which estate they have continued without any Legal Interruption from that time to this But says the same Author in the First Branch there was somewhat more than what appeared at the first sight For though it seemed to aim at nothing but that the Bishops should depend wholly on the King for their preferment to those great and eminent places yet the true drift of the Design was to make Deans and Chapters useless for the time to come and thereby to prepare them for a Dissolution For had nothing else been intended in it but that the King should have the sole Nomination of all the Bishops in his Kingdoms it had
Nominatione non facta intra Sex menses devolvitur Nominatio plena Dispositio Episcopatus ad Papam As also appears in that remarkable Case controverted touching the Confirmation of the Election Ad Episcopatum Appamiarum For upon the death of Cardinal de Albret An. 1520. 10. Dec. that Bishoprick became void whereupon the Canons of that Church convened and proceeded to the Election of a new Bishop and chose D. Bernard de Lordat who being elected applied himself Archiepiscopo Tholosano tanquam suo Metropolitano saltem Vicariis suis for the Confirmation of his Election which was done accordingly to which Confirmation the Procurator Regius was not called who appealed from the said Election and Confirmation alledging that the Nomination to the Bishoprick belonged to the King who Nominated D. John de Puis to the Pope whereupon the Pope granted the said Bishoprick to the said John de Puis who by the Bulls and Proxies of the Pope took possession thereof From all which Appeal was again afterwards in Supremam Curiam between De 〈◊〉 and Lordat but De Puis obtaining another Bishoprick the Process on the Appeal was Extinct and Lordat by a Definitive had the Possession of the said Bishoprick Confirmed to him CHAP. VI. Of Consecration 1. What Consecration signifies the Ancient Rites and Ceremonies thereof under the Law who they were to whom it belonged 2. Consecration as specially Applicable to Bishops 3. An Ancient Canon touching the Consecration of Churches 4. The Form of Consecration of Churches by the Justinian Law the Rites and Ceremonies therein used by the Greek and Latin Churches 5. Consecration of Bishops how necessary by the Imperial Law Consonant to the practice of the Greek and Latin Churches 6. Consecration of Bishops is Character Indelebilis at the Common Law 7. Who first Consecrated Churches who first took the style of Pope The Original of Godfathers and Godmothers in Baptism 8. In case of Translations of Bishops no need of new Consecrations Requisites to Creation and Translation of Bishops according to the Common Law of England 1. CONSECRATION here chiefly refers either to Bishops or Churches The Civil as well as Canon Law takes notice of both It signifies a Dedication to God Justinian in his Novel's makes use of the word thereby signifying an Imposition of hands For in this manner says that Book of great Antiquity entituled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 began Bishops to be Consecrated It is a kind of Separation of persons Ecâ—csiastical from the Laity and of things Sacred from Prophane for the especial use and service of God The word in the Hebrew signifies a Filling of the hand thereby intimating that under the Law in the Consecration of any there was a giving them or Putting into their hands things to offer whereby they were admitted to their Priestly Office In this Consecration the holy Unction was used or the holy Oyl or holy Ointment which was not to be applied to any Prophane or Civil use but to be appropiated to the Sons of Aaron only whereas Kings were and are to be Anointed that is to be understood as by especial command from God as an Exception to the Sacerdotal practice and as a Consecrating them to the Government in relation whereto a King is a Mixt person under a double capacity Ecclesiastical and Civil as next under God the Supream in Church and State within his own Dominions And although under the Levitical Law there was an Anointing Oyl common to the High Priest with the Inferiour Priests yet the High Priest had a Consecration peculiar to himself which was by the pouring out the precious Oyntment upon his head In imitation whereof are Kings at this day anointed to the Regal Authority 2. The import of this word Consecration as practicable in all Ages specially refers to Archbishops and Bishops and with us consists in certain Benedictions and Ceremonies peculiarly requisite thereunto And when after Election and Confirmation the person is Consecrated and Invested he is then compleat Bishop as well to Temporalties as Spiritualties and then the power of the Guardian of the Spiritualties doth cease Being Consecrated he may confer Holy Orders upon others and may Consecrate Churches and Chappels which before he could not Anselm Archbishop of Canterbury deprived divers Prelates for receiving Investure of King H. 1. but after they were restored ex gratia Speed 436. The Roman Synod made a Cannon that Investure belongs to the Pope yet H. 1. used to give Investure as he did to Ralph Archbishop of Canterbury Sp. 440. b. 3. Touching the Consecration of Churches the Learned Sir H. Spelman makes mention of a very Ancient Canon made by the Synod held at Celichyth in the year 816. under Wulfred Archbishop of Canterbury and President of the said Synod Kenulph King of Morcia being threat also personally present The Canon is to this purpose viz. Wherever a Church is built or erected let it be Sanctified by the Bishop of the proper Diocess Let it have a Benediction from himself and be sprinkled with Holy Water and so be made a compleat Church in such manner as is prescribed in the Ministerial Book Afterwards let the Eucharist which is Consecrated by the same Bishop be together with other Reliques reposited and laid up in a Chest and kept and preserved in the same Church And we Ordain and Command that every Bishop take care that the Saints to whom their Churches are dedicated respectively be painted on the Church-walls or in Tables or on the Altars 4. The Emperour Justinian in his care of the Church hath prescirbed a Form of Consecration thereof in this manner viz. his Law is That none shall presume to erect a Church until the Bishop of the Diocess hath been first acquainted therewith and shall come the lift up his hands to Heaven and Consecrate the place to God by Prayer and erect the Symbole of our Salvation viz. the venerable and truly precioas Rood Likewise among other Ceremonies of Consecrating Churches the laying of the first Stone was of Ancient use in the Greek Church as may be observed out of their Euchologue where it is said That the Bishop after some other Rites performed standing in the place where the Holy Altar shall be set saith certain Prayers which being ended he giveth tho Ite Missa est and then taketh up one of the Stones and having cut a Cross upon it himself with his own hands layeth it upon the Groundwork as the first Foundation-stone then be pronounceth the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and so the Workmen begin the Building The like Ceremonies are used in the Latin Church at this day at the Consecration of Churches as appears by their Pontificale There is this further touching the Consecration of Churches in the Euchologue of the Greek Church That the Bishop having on his Formilities fumeth the Ground-work or Foundation with his Iacense Circular-wise then the Singing-men say
the Bishoprick of Winchester contra novi Concilii statuta as the same Author reporteth And this because succeeding Popes had broken Pope Vrban's promise Touching the not sending of Legates into England unless the King should require it And in the time of the next succeeding King Stephen the Pope gained Appeals to the Court of Rome For in a Synod at London Conven'd by Hen. Bishop of Winchester the Pope's Legate it was Decreed That Appeals should be made from Provincial Councils to the Pope Before which time Appellationes in usu non erant saith a Monk of that time donec Henricus Winton Episcopus malo suo dum Legatus esset crudeliter intrusit Thus did the Pope usurp Three main points of Jurisdiction upon Three several Kings after the Conquest for of King William Rufus he could win nothing viz. upon the Conquerour the sending of Legates or Commissioners to hear and determine Ecclesiastical Causes Upon Hen. 1. the Donation and Investures of Bishopricks and other Benefices and upon King Stephen the Appeals to the Court of Rome And in the time of King H. 2. the Pope claimed exemption of Clerks from the Secular Power 2. The high Court of Convocation is called the Convocation of the Clergy and is the highest Court Ecclesiastical where the whole Clergy of both Provinces are either present in Person or by their Representatives They commonly meet and sit in Parliament-time consisting of Two parts viz. the Upper-house where the Archbishops and Bishops do sit and the Lower-house where the Inferiour Clergy do sit This Court hath the Legislative power of making Ecclesiastical Laws is commonly called a National Synod Conven'd by the King 's Writ directed to the Archbishop of each Province for summoning all Bishops Deans Archdeacons Cathedrals and Collegiate Churches assigning them the time and place in the said Writ But one Proctor sent for each Cathedral and Collegiate Church and two for the Body of the inferiour Clergy of each Diocess may suffice The higher House of Convocation or the House of Lords Spiritual for the Province of Canterbury consists of 22 Bishops whereof the Archbishop is President the Lower-house or House of Commons Spiritual consisting of all the Deans Archdeacons one Proctor for every Chapter and two for the Clergy of each Diocess in all 166 persons viz. 22 Deans 24 Prebendaries 54 Archdeacons and 44 Clerks representing the Diocesan Clergy Both Houses debate and transact only such matters as his Majesty by Commission alloweth concerning Religion and the Church All the Members of both Houses of Convocation have the same priviledges for themselves and Menial Servants as the Members of Parliament have The Archbishop of York at the same time and in the like manner holds a Convocation of all his Province at York constantly corresponding debating and concluding the same matters with the Provincial Synod of Canterbury The Antiquity of this Court of Convocation is very great for according to Beda St. Augustine An. 686. assembled in Council the Britain Bishops and held a great Synod The Clergy was never assembled or called together at a Convocation by other Authority than by the King 's Writ Vid. Parl. 18 E. 3. nu 1. Inter Leges Inae An. Dom. 727. A Convocation of the Clergy called Magna servorum Dei frequentia The Jurisdiction of the Convocation is only touching matters meerly Spiritual and Ecclesiastical wherein they proceed juxta Legem Divinam Canones Sanctae Ecclesiae The Lord Coke cites some Ancient Records to prove that the Court of Convocation did not meddle with any thing concerning the Kings Temporal Laws of the Land and thence inferrs That the Statute of 25 H. 8. cap. 19. whereby it is provided That no Canons Constitution or Ordinance should be made or put in execution within this Realm by Authority of the Convocation of the Clergy which were contrariant or repugnant to the King's Prerogative Royal or the Customes Laws and Statutes of this Realm is but declaratory of the old Common Law And by the said Act the Court of Convocation as to the making of new Canons is to have the King's License as also his Royal Assent for the putting the same in execution But towards the end of that Act there is an express Proviso that such Canons as were made before that Act which be not contrariant nor repugnant to the King's Prerogative the Laws Statutes or Customes of the Realm should be still used and executed as they were before the making of that Act. And if any Cause shall depend in contention in any Ecclesiastical Court which shall or may touch the King his Heirs or Successors the party grieved shall or may appeal to the Upper-house of Convocation within fifteen days after Sentence given Remarkable are the Constitutions of Claringdon in the time of King H. 2. occasioned by the Popes claiming Exemption of Clerks from the Secular power so contended for by Thomas Becket then Archbishop of Canterbury against the King as occasioned a convening a Common Council as well of the Bishops as of the Nobility at Claringdon in the time of H. 2. wherein they revived and re-established the Ancient Laws and Customes of the Kingdom for the Government of the Clergy and ordering of Causes Ecclesiastical The principal Heads or Articles whereof were these viz. 1 That no Bishop or Clerk should depart the Realm without the King's License and that such as obtained License should give Sureties That they should not procure any dammage to the King or Realm during their absence in Foreign parts 2 That all Bishopricks and Abbies being void should remain in the Kings hands as his own Demesns until he had chosen and appointed a Prelate thereunto and that every such Prelate should do his Homage to the King before he be admitted to the place 3 That Appeals should be made in Causes Ecclesiastical in this manner viz. From the Archdeacon to the Ordinary from the Ordinary to the Metropolitan from him to the King and no farther 4 That Peter-Pence should be paid no more to the Pope but to the King 5 That if any Clerk should commit Felony he should be hanged if Treason he should be drawn and quartered 6 That it should be adjudged High Treason to bring in Bulls of Excommunication whereby the Realm should be cursed 7 That no Decree should be brought from the Pope to be executed in England upon pain of Imprisonment and Confiscation of Goods 3. Arches or alma Curia de Arcubus so called of Bow-Church in London by reason of the Steeple or Clochier thereof raised at the top with Stone-pillars in fashion like a Bow-bent Arch-wise in which Church this Court was ever wont to be held being the chief and most Ancient Court and Consistory of the Jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Canterbury which Parish of Bow together with twelve others in London whereof Bow is the chief are within the Peculiar Jurisdiction of the said Archbishop in Spiritual Causes and
of Advowson of a Church he may only say that he was seized as of Fee and not in his Demesn as of Fee whether it be an Advowson in Gross or Appendant which Appendancy is held to be for the most part by Prescription and must relate to such things as are in their own nature of a perpetual continuance for which reason it is That Advowsons cannot be said to be Appendant to Rents Services and the like because such things are extinguishable And although an Advowson be not properly said to be a Demesn yet it may be Appendant to a Demesn as of Lands or things Corporeal and Perpetual and therefore as supposed not to a House of habitation meerly quatenus such yet to the Soyl whereon the House is erected whereby the Law which hath the clearest prospect of Casualties at a distance hath provided that the Advowson shall stand though the House fall but an Advowson Disappendant and in Gross which in man hath alone and not by reason of any other thing but severed from the Lands to which it was Appendant such an Advowson is exempt from divers prejudicial Incidents which the other viz. the Appendant cannot well avoid And where a Subject or Common person hath an Advowson Appendant to a Mannor and there be an Usurpation upon him by a Presentation made by a Stranger whose Clerk is in for Six months though this makes the Advowson of such Common person Disappendant to his Mannor yet it is otherwise in case of the King who may grant the Advowson notwithstanding such Usurpation for a man cannot put the King out of possession either by Presentation or Usurpation as hath been Adjudged Nor doth the King's Presentation by Lapse sever the Advowson from the Mannor or cause it to become disappendant as in Gawdy's Case against the Archbishop of Canterbury and Others was likewise Adjudged in which Case it was also said by Habard Chief Justice That neither doth a wrongful Collation of the Bishops make any Disappendancy nor any binding Plenarty against the true Patron but that he may not only bring his Quare Impedit when he please but also Present upon him seven years after Also whereas it was said before That an Advowson cannot be Appendant to things Extinguishable as to Rents Services and the like so it seems at the Common Law an Advowson in Possession cannot be Appendant to a Reversion expectant upon an Estate for life for the Case was The King seized of a Mannor with an Advowson Appendant granted the Mannor to J. S. for life and then granted the Mannor to J. D. after the death of J. S. Habendum una cum Advocatione and then by Parliament the King reciting both the Grants confirmed them by Parliament yet the Advowson passed not Finally whereas also it hath been Adjudged as aforesaid that the King cannot be put out of possession either by Presentation or Usurpation this seems to refer only as to the Kings Advowson and not as to his present Presentation for the Opinion of Sir H. Hobart Chief Justice is That although the King may be dispossessed of his present Presentation he cannot be so of his Advowson and therefore he may still grant it notwithstanding the Usurpation as was Judged in a Writ of Error upon a Judgment given to the contrary between the King and Campion for the Vicarage of Newton Valence 23. A Donative in the Kings Gift may be with Cure of Souls as the Church of the Tower of London is a Donative in the Kings Gift with Cure as in the Case of Fletcher and Mackaller where Information was brought upon the Stat. 31 Eliz. of Simony for procuring him to be promoted to the Church of the Tower for money and per Curiam it well lies 24. The Queen hath the Advowson of the Vicarage of H. and grants the Vicarage to J. S. It was the Opinion of all the Justices that the Advowson passeth not for that the Vicarage is another thing than the Advowson of the Vicarage The Queen seized of a Mannor to which an Advowson was appendant granted the Mannor cum Advocatione Ecclesiae the Church being then void It was Adjudged the Avoidance did not pass but the Queen should Present pro hac vice And in the Queen and Hussie's Case it was Resolved That a double Presentation would not put the Queen out of possession if she hath Right And in Stephens and Clarks Case it was Resolved That the Grant of the next Avoidance to one during the Avoidance is void in Law CHAP. XX. Of Appropriations 1. The great Antiquity of Appropriations a Conjecture of their Original whether Charles Martell was the occasion thereof they were prohibited in England anciently by the Pope whether they can be otherwise than by the King or some Authority derived from him 2. How the End and use of Appropriations is changed at this day from what it was in the Original Institution thereof 3. Appropriators why called Proprietarii The care of R. 2. in making Provision for thé Vicar in case of Appropriations Requisites of Law to make an Appropriation 4. A further discovery of the Original use and ends of Appropriations and under what qualifications 5. Whether Appropriations were anciently grantable to Nunneries 6. Appropriations not now to be questioned as to their Original 7. A Vicarage endowed may be Appropriated but not to a Parson 8. Three considerable Points of Law resolved by the Justices touching Appropriations 9. Whether an Advowson may be Appropriated without a Succession Appropriations usually were to Corporations or Persons Spiritual 10. How a Church Appropriate may be disappropriated 11. In Appropriations the Patron and his Successors are perpetual Parsons 12. Whether an Appropriation of a Parsonage without endowment of the Vicarage be good Also whether an Appropriation may be made without the Kings License 1. IT is a question at this day undecided Whether Princes or Popes were the first Authors of Appropriations the practice whereof by each of them is of great Antiquity but whether in imitation of Charles Martell's Sacrilegious President the first by whom Tithes were ever violated in the Christian World is but a Supposition rather than any Assertion among Historians It was long since Traditionally Recorded in History that about the year 650. when the said Charles Martell Father of Pipin after King of France in defence of his Country against the Hunnes Gothes and Vandals had slain no less than 34500 of those Infidel Sarazens in one Battel he did not restore to such of the Clergy of France their Tithes as from whom under a fair pretence of supporting the charges of the War thereby he had upon a Promise of Restitution thereof so soon as the War should cease obtained the same but instead thereof gratified such of the Nobility as had assisted him in the War by the grant thereof to them and their Heirs for ever But whether this Sacriledge if it be true had
in strictness of Law by the words cum pertinentiis yet it shall be intended in respect of the Ancient and continued possession that there was a lawful Grant of the King to H. B. c. and all shall be presumed to be done which might make the Ancient Appropriation good And the Reason thereof there given is for that if the Appropriation had been drawn in question in the Life-time of any of the Parties to it they might have shewed the truth of the matter But after so many Successions of Ages in which the Church was esteemed to be rightfully Appropriated the Appropriation shall not now be drawn in question For the same reason a Procedendo was refused to be granted in Chancery in the Case of the Lord St. John of Bletso and the Dean and Chapter of Gloucester the Court then giving for Reason because the Defendant and those from whom he claimed time out of mind had had the possession of a Parsonage as Impropriate saving for some short time and because it shall be a dangerous President for Owners of Impropriations to maintain the Appropriations to be Perfect in all points and circumstances requisite to an Absolute Appropriation the Appropriations being made of Ancient time The like Resolution was given by the Court in Hunston and Cockett's Case viz. That whether an Appropriation be good or not cannot now be called into question but shall be intended to be good and to all requisite Circumstances 7. An Appropriation cannot in any case be made by the Patron himself only yet where the King is Patron it may be made by him Sole And although upon every Appropriation there ought to be an Endowment of a Vicar yet a Vicarage it self Endowed may as hath been held by the whole Court be Appropriated but not to the Parson and as in the Book 21 H. 6. is such a Vicarage as may afterwards be dissolved And if a Lease be made of a Parsonage Impropriate by one who hath not any thing therein during the life of the Incumbent it will be void nor can an Appropriation be made to a Church which is Full of an Incumbent but by Special words It hath also been held That a Vicarage Perpetual could not be dissolved after the Statute of 4 H. 4. and that the Pope had not any power to make any Ordinance against that Statute by which he hath not any Right to meddle with Advowsons Benefices c. and that by his Bulls he cannot dispence with the Law though they tend in ordine ad Spiritualia 8. Touching Appropriations there were Three considerable Points in Law Resolved by the Justices in Grendon's Case 1 That none is capable of Appropriation but a Body Corporate or Politick Spiritual which hath a Succession For that the effect of an Appropriation as to the first Institution thereof was to make the Body Politick perpetual Incumbent and to have the Rectory and that he hath the Cure of all the Souls of the Parishioners and therefore he must be a Spiritual person 2 That the King Ordinary and Patron ought to be assenting unto every Appropriation and that the Authority which the Pope had usurped in this Realm was by Parliament An. 25 H. 8 acknowledged to be in the King and the King being Supream Ordinary might of his own Authority and Jurisdiction make an Appropriation without the Assent of the Bishop 3 That an Appropriation may be made by Apt words when the Church is Full as to say That the Parson who is a Spiritual person after that the Church shall be void shall be Parson and may retain the Glebe and the Fruits of the Church to his proper use and that the same shall be a good Appropriation when the Church shall be void by death or otherwise 9. It is brought by way of Report to us That it was the Opinion of the Master of the Rolls in the great Case of Consultation which was argued in the Exchequer Chamber the 18 H. 6. 21. a. That an Advowson could not be Appropriate without a Succession although that the Incumbent purchased the Advowson by License to hold to his Own use Where it was further said That if a Prior were seized of an Advowson to him and his Heirs and he purchase License of Appropriation and that he and his Successors might hold the Advowson to their own use yet the Advowson shall descend to his Heirs But in such case if he would have the Appropriation to be good it were best to alien the Advowson and after to re-purchase it to him and his Successors and then the Appropriation will be good All Appropriations have been usually to Corporations or persons Spiritual and not to Bodies Politick consisting of meer Lay-men or Lay-Corporations And in Alden and Tothil's Case it was in question Whether the King since the Statute of 25 H. 8. might by his Letters Patents Appropriate a Church Parochial which was before Presentative unto a Lay-Corporation all the Members of the Corporation being meer Lay-men which Case was not then Resolved 10. As a Church Parochial might be Appropriated so a Church which is Appropriated to a Spiritual Corporation may become disappropriate if the Corporation be-dissolved Also if the Advowson of a Church were by License granted to a Prior and his Successors and afterwards the same Church were Appropriated to him and his Successors so as thereby they became perpetual Parsons Imparsonees In that Case if the Wife of a Grantor were endowed of the Advowson and Presented a Clerk who was Admitted Instituted and Inducted the Appropriation would be defeated for ever for the whole Estate of the Parson Imparsonee is thereby avoided And so it was Adjudged 2 E. 3. 8. sed Quaere For in the Case of Lancaster and Lucas it was held by the Court That in such Case the Church was Disappropriated but during the life of the Wife and after her death it should remain as Appropriated 11. Sir H. Hobart Chief Justice in the Case of Colt and Glover against the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield says That the proper and operative word that doth Appropriate is to make the Patron and his Successors Perpetual Parsons and in the Case of Wright against Gilbert Gerrard and Richard Hildersham That the Instrument of Appropriation runs in these words That they and their Successors not their Assigns shall be Parsons or by Periphrasis hold the Church in proper use and the words of Appropriating are that they may hold Ecclesiam Rectoriam in proprios usus as in Grindon's Case and says further that Appropriations cannot endure longer than the Bodies whereunto they were first Appropriate because it carries not only the Glebe and Tithes but doth also give the Spiritual Function makes the Parsons of the Church and supplies Institution and Induction 12. A Prior was seized of the Advowson of a Parsonage the Church being void the Bishop gave him License to hold
3 ly if he Present not within the time by Law limited then the King shall Present for that he is Patron paramount of all the Benefices within his Realms as also because the King and his Progenitors Kings of England have had Authority time out of mind to determine the Right of Patronages in this Realm in their own Courts whence lies no Appeal to any Foreign pretended Power The Rosell Summist indeed makes more Gradations in this matter as from the Patron to the Chapter from the Chapter to the Bishop from the Bishop to the Metropolitan from the Metropolitan to the Patriarch and if none such then to the Pope Sed hoc nihil ad nos part of whose happiness is an Index Expurgatorius of the last recited Premisses And although the Law is That the Ordinary shall Present in case the Patron doth not within Six months yet the Law withal is That if the Patron Present before the Ordinary put in his Clerk the Patron of right shall enjoy his Presentation And if the Ordinary surcess his time limited he loses his power as to that Presentation specially if it be devolv'd to the King And when the Presentation is in the Metropolitan he shall put in the Clerk himself and not the Ordinary and so there is no default in the Ordinary though he Present not the Clerk of the Patron if his time be past in which case there is no remedy for the Patron against the Ordinary This matter of Lapse is of very ancient practice for Mich. 3. E. 1. B. Rot. 105. Staff the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield pleaded a Collation by Lapse Authoritate Concilii against the Prior of Landa to the Church of Patingham And 6 E. 1. Rot. Paten membra 25. in a Quare non admisit by the Abbot of St. Mary Eborum against the Bishop of Norwich the Bishop made a Title by Lapse viz. That he Collated Authoritate Concilii post Lapsum semestre c. And there afterwards in the Judgment it is said Quia tempus semestre Authoritate Concilii non incipit versus Patronum nisi à tempore scientiae mortis c. Q. what Council is here meant or intended For P. 9 E. 1. B. Rot. 51. it appears that Lapse was given per Concilium Lugdunense post tempus semestre The like also in a Writ in the time of E. 2. cited by Sir Ed. Co. 6. in Catesby's Case 62 yet in Bracton the Lapsus temporis is de Constitutione Lateranensi And yet Britton fo 225. speaks of the Tempus Semestre or the Six months according to the Council of Lions But Mr. Selden in his Book of Tithes 390. says That the Manuscripts of Breton have Lateran for Lions and in fol. 388. holds That this Lapse was received in the Laws of this Realm out of the General Council of Lateran held in the year 25 H. 2. as the Learned Serjeant Roll observes in his Abridgment on this word of Lapse where he also cites Hovenden fo 326. asserting That among the Canons of the Council of Lateran under Alex. 3. held under Alex. 3. An. 1118. in the time of King Hen. 2. there is a Canon in these words or to this effect viz Cum vero Praebendas Ecclesias seu quaelibet Officia in aliqua Ecclesia vacare contigerit vel si etiam mod◠vacant non diu maneant in suspenso sed infra Sex menses personis quae digne administrare valeant conferantur si autem Episcopus ubi ad eum spectaverit conferre distulit per Capitulum Ordinetur And before the said Council the Patron was not limited to any time but might Present at his pleasure without any Lapse Touching other Presidents of great Antiquity relating to this Subject of Lapse the Reader is here referred to that Learned Serjeant Rolle in the forecited place of his Abridgment And although according to the Gradations aforesaid the Lapse devolves from the Patron to the Bishop from the Bishop to the Archbishop from the Archbishop to the King yet if after Lapse incurr to the Metropolitan and before Collation by him made the Patron Present he may Present to the Ordinary of the Diocess without Presenting to the Metropolitan Contra H. 41 El. B. R. per Popbam for thereby he seems to redeem his neglect But yet if Lapse devolve to the King and then the Inferiour Ordinary Collate by the Lapse and his Clerk be Instituted and Inducted it seems this doth not make a Plenarty against the King to put him to his Quare Impedit but he may notwithstanding Present and oust the Clerk of the Ordinary for when Lapse incurrs to the King it cannot be taken away by the Ordinary And then when the Ordinary Collates without good Title it makes not any Plenarty against him who hath the right as the King hath to Present for a Lapse incurring to the King is not like that which incurrs to the Metropolitan But if a Patron Present and his Clerk be Instituted and remain Eighteen months without Induction in that case there doth not any Lapse incurr to the King for the King hath not any Lapse but where the Ordinary might have had it before But if a Bishop dies whereby the Temporalties are in the Kings hands if during that time the Six months pass whereby a Lapse happens the King shall have it and not the Guardian of the Spiritualties Nor doth an Admittance of a Resignation by Fraud take away the Kings Title for in Comber's Case against the Bishop of Cicester where the Issue in a Quare Impedit was If S. R. by covin between him and C and R. did Resign into the hands of the said Bishop if the King hath Title of Lapse and a Resignation be made by fraud and one Admitted this shall not take away the Kings Title for if the Kings Title appear upon Record then shall go out a Writ for the King but otherwise it is upon matter of Evidence the King doth lose his Presentation as well by resignation as by death where he hath Title to Present by Lapse and doth not except the Resignation be by Fraud And in the Case of the Queen and the Archbishop of York and Bucks it was Resolved by the Justices That a Collation although double or treble cannot be an Usurpation against the King to put him out of an Advowson 2. The Canon Law allows Two months more to an Ecclesiastical than to a Lay-Patron ere the Lapse shall be incurr'd the former having by that Law Six months to Present the latter but Four Summ. Angel tit Jus Patronat § 16. So the Law of Scotland Pars Couns par 1. c. 2. We need not enquire into the Reason of that difference or disproportion let it suffice the Laity That it was the Canonists pleasure to have it so for reasons best known to their own interest the Common Law impartially levels them both to one and the same equal standard
of Six months By the Common Law of England as well Clerks as Laicks have Six months to Present before the Lapse incurr Dr. Stu. 116. b. Per la Com. Ley De Scoce Laici Patroni quadrimestre Ecclesiastici vero Sex mensium spatium habent sibi concessum ad Praesentandum personam idoneam Ecclesiae vacanti Skene Regiam Majestatem 10. b. But Jac. 6. pl. 1. cap. 7. Pl. 7. cap. 102. pl. 12. cap. 119 158. Concedit Patrono Laico spatium Sex mensium infra quod Praesentare debet The Question is not so much when the Term shall end and determine as when it shall commence and from what time the Six months shall be computed The Answer falls under a double consideration or is diversified according to the divers manners of Avoidances for if by Death Creation or Cession the Church be void then the Six months shall be computed from the Death Creation or Cession of the last Incumbent whereof the Patron is to take Notice at his peril But if the Avoidance be by Resignation or Deprivation then the Six months shall begin from the time of Notice thereof given by the Bishop to the Patron who is not obliged to take knowledge thereof from any other than by signification from the Bishop But in case the Avoidance were caused by an Union for so it might be then the Six months should be computed from the time of the Agreement upon that Union for in that case the Patron was not ignorant of but privy to the Avoidance for there could be no Union made but the Patron must have the knowledge thereof and then it was to be appointed who should Present after the Union as whether one or both either joyntly or by turns one after another as the Agreement was upon the Union 3. The Continuance of a Voidance of a Church by the several Lapses of Patron Bishop and Archbishops derives the Title of Presentation at last to the King as Patron paramount of all the Churches in England and wherever the Original Patron by Law ought to take notice of a Voidance at his peril there and in such case by a Non-Presentation within Six months from the time of such Voidance the Lapse will ever incurr And generally by the Admission Institution and Induction to a Second Benefice Prima Ecclesia vacat de persona of the Incumbent vacans continuat till new Induction But when an Archbishop Bishop or other Ordinary hath given a Benefice of right devolute unto him by Lapse of time and after the King Presenteth and taketh his Suit against the Patron who possibly will suffer that the King shall recover without Action tried in deceipt of the Ordinary or the possessor of the said Benefice In such and all other like cases where the Kings Right is not tried the Archbishop Bishop Ordinary or Possessor shall be received to counterplead the Title taken for the King and to have his Answer and to shew and defend his Right upon the matter although that he claim nothing in the Patronage so that the Ordinary may Counterplead the Kings Title for a Benefice fallen to him by Lapse Also when the King doth make Collation or Presentment to a Benefice in anothers Right the Title whereupon he groundeth himself may be well examined that it be true which if before Judgment it be by good information found to be otherwise the Collation or Presentment thereof made may be Repealed whereupon the true Patron or Possessor may have as many Writs out of Chancery as shall be needful There are some Statutes the King not being bound by Lapse of Time for nullum Tempus occurrit Regi which are good remedies and reliefs for the Ordinary that hath Collated by Lapse as also for the Clerk that is Collated for otherwise a Common person might by Practice have turned out a lawful Collatee to which purpose the Lord Hobart doth instance in a Case A Common person no true Patron Presents within Six months and the true Patron himself Presents not in time whereupon the Ordinary Collates by the Lapse against whom the Pretender brings a Quare Impedit because his Clerk was refused wherein he must needs prevail if his Title be good and it must be taken for good because neither Ordinary nor Incumbent could deny it for de non apparentibus de non existentibus eadem est ratio which Inconvenience is remedied by the said Stat. of 25 E. 3. c. 7. Note that Lapse doth not incurr to the Ordinary by reason of his not examining the Clerk within Six months Trin. 3 Jac. B. R. inter Palmer Smith Resolved per Cur. 4. If a Plea be depending between Two parties and it be not discussed and determined within Six months the Bishop may Present by Lapse and he that hath the Right to Present shall according to the Statute recover his Dammages But it is expresly provided by the Statute of 13 Eliz. 12. That no Title to Collate or Present by a Lapse shall accrue upon any Deprivation ipso facto but after Six months after Notice of such Deprivation given by the Ordinary to the Patron But if the Church become void by Death Creation or Cession of the last Incumbent the Patron is at his peril to take Notice of such Avoidances within the next Six months thereof But if it become void by Deprivation or Resignation the Clerk is not obliged to tender his Presentation to the Bishop nor the Patron obliged to Present his Clerk but within Six months next after Notice legally given him by the Ordinary of the Avoidance by such Deprivation or Resignation which Six months are to be calculated or computed by 182 days and not by 28 days to the Month Nor is there any Addition of time over and above the Six months allowed the Patron to Present from the Vacancy a Second Clerk in case the former were legally refused by the Bishop Yet the Ordinary may not take advantage of the Lapse in case the Patron Present his Clerk before the other hath Collated though it be otherwise with the Canonists Lindw c. Si aliquo evincente c. verb. Injuria But if the Bishop Collate and the Patron Present before Induction in that case it seems he comes too late And at the Common Law Sir Simon Degge in his Parsons Counsellor makes it a doubtful Question if the Church Lapse to the King and the Patron Presents before the King take advantage of the Lapse whether this shall avoid the Kings Title by Lapse This says he is a Question by Dyer though Hobart seems to be clear in it that the King shall not have the benefit of the Lapse but adds that divers Authorities are against them And in the Cases aforesaid wherein Notice of Avoidance ought to be given to the Patron before the Lapse can incurr the Patron is not obliged to take Notice thereof from any person other
Or thus The Next Avoidance was granted to Two the one Released to the other who brought a Quare Impedit in his own Name and it was adjudged maintainable because it was before the Church was void 20. A. seized of the Mannor of D. to which an Advowson was Appendant granted the Next Avoidance to B. and D. eorum cuilibet conjunctim divisim Haered Executor Assignatis suis The Church void B. Presents D. to the Church Adjudged that the Presentment of him was good though he were one of the Grantees CHAP. XXVI Of Pluralities 1. Pluralities condemned by the Council of Lateran yet dispenc'd with by Kings and Popes 2. What in this matter the Pope anciently exercised by way of Vsurpation the King may now do de jure The difference between them in the manner how 3. What persons are qualified for granting or receiving Pluralities 4. Several Laws relating to Pluralities Dispensations and Qualifications 5. How the 8 l. annual value of a Benefice shall be understood whether as in the Kings Books or according to the true value of the Benefice 6. The Lord Hobart's Opinion touching the Statute of 21 H. 8. relating to Pluralities 7. What the Pope's Power in England was before the making of the said Statute And whether the taking of a Bishoprick in Ireland by a Dean in England makes the Deanary void by Cession 8. The Chaplains of Persons of Honour having divers Benefices shall retain them for their Lives though they be discharged of their Service 9. Whether the Ecclesiastical Court may take cognizance of Plenarty or Voidance after Induction And whether the cognizance of Cession or no Cession belongs to the Temporal or Spiritual Count. 10. Difference between Voidance by Act of Parliament and Voidance by the Ecclesiastical Law 11. A Prohibition granted upon Sequestration of a Benefice by the Bishop 12. The Fifth Paragraph aforesaid Adjudged and determined 13. How the Voidance in case of Three Benefices in one person 14. Benefice not void if the King License the Incumbent to be an Incumbent and a Bishop 15. How the taking of a Second Benefice is a Voidance of the First 16. Whether so in case of a Chaplain of the King 17. Whether so in case of a Si modo or Modo sit by way of a Limitation in the Dispensation 18. Whether the word Dispensamus be necessary in the Letters of Dispensation for a Plurality 19. The Kings Retainer of a Chaplain by Word only qualifies him for a Plurality within the Statute of 21 H. 8. 20. Whether a Third Chaplain retained by a Countess Widow is qualified to purchase a Dispensation for Plurality 21. In reference to Plurality whether regard is to be had to the value mentioned in the Statute of 25 H. 8. or to the true value of the Benefice 22. Whether Admission and Iustitution makes the First Benefice void without Induction 23. Whether before the Statute of 25 H. 8. the Pope might here grant Dispensations for Pluralities 24. Whether the Retainer of a Chaplain may be good and sufficient without a Patent 25. In what case a Dispensation for Plurality may come too late though before Induction 26. Three Resolutions of Law in reference to Avoidance by reason of Plurality 1. PLurality according to the Common acceptation of the word is where one and the same person is possessed of Two or more Ecclesiastical Benefices with Cure of Souls simul semel It was long since condemned by the general Council of Lateran whereby it was Ordained That whatever Ecclesiastical person having one Benefice with Cure of Souls doth take another such shall ipso jure be deprived of the former and if he contest for the retaining thereof shall lose both Notwithstanding which Canon it was heretofore usual with the Pope to usurp a power of Dispensation in this matter the which de jure was anciently practised by Kings as Supream and as the original Donors of Benefices and Ecclesiastical Dignities witness Edmond that Monk of Bury who by virtue of such Dispensations held several Ecclesiastical Benefices at one and the same time The said Canon as to the substance thereof relating to Pluralities is now Confirmed by the Statute of 21 H. 8. 13. which limits the former Benefice with Cure of Souls to the yearly value of Eight pounds or upwards and the time of Avoidance thereof to be immediately after possession by Induction into the other with Cure of Souls with power of Presentation de novo granted to the Patron of the former Benefice and all benefit of the same to the Presentee as if the Incumbent had died or resigned Q. Whether the said yearly value of Eight pounds or above ought to be computed according to the valuation in the Kings Books as returned into the Exchequer and now used in the First-Fruits Office or according to the just and true value of the Benefice Q. likewise Whether a Parson of a Church Impropriate with a Vicar perpetually endowed accepting of a Presentation unto the Vicarage without Dispensation be a Pluralist within the Canon and Statute aforesaid The Negative is supposed to give the best Solution to the Question 2. The same power of granting Faculties Pluralities Commendams c. which anciently the Pope exercised in this Realm by Usurpation is by the Statute of 21 H. 8. cap. 13. and 1 Eliz. transferr'd unto and vested in the Crown de jure also from and under the King in the Archbishop of Canterbury and his Commissaries by Authority derived from the Crown The Pope anciently granted to Bishops after Consecration Dispensations Recipere obtinere Beneficium cum cura animarum to hold the same in Commendam the which he did in this Realm by Usurpation and which the Crown may now do de jure for the same power as aforesaid which the Pope had is by the Acts of Parliament in 25 H. 8. 1 Eliz. in the King de jure But there is a very material difference between the Dispensations anciently here granted by the Pope and those at this day by the King and Archbishop Confirmed by the Kings Letters Patents which are not good otherwise than to such as are Compleat Incumbents at the time of granting thereof whereas it was sometimes otherwise with the other whence it is observable that in Digbie's Case the Dispensation came too soon A. is Instituted and Inducted into a Benefice with Cure value Eight pounds per ann Afterwards the King presenting him to another with Cure he is Admitted and Instituted Afterwards the Archbishop of Canterbury grants him Letters of Dispensation to hold Two Benefices the King confirms the same Afterwards he is Inducted into the Second Benefice In this case the Dispensation comes too late because by the Institution into the Second Benefice the First Benefice was void by the Stat. of 21 H. 8. 3. The Acceptance of a Second Benefice with a Dispensation comes not under the notion of prohibited Pluralities in case
repealed dissolved extinguished and determined by King H. 8. by his Letters Patents in the 38th year of his Reign a new Court of Augmentations was erected by his Letters Patents which Repeal and Dissolution thereof was held void in Law because they had been erected by Authority of Parliament For which reason also the new Erection of the new Court of Augmentations was held likewise void and therefore the said Letters Patents as well for the dissolution of the former as for the erecting of the latter new Court of Augmentations were after confirmed and established by a Statute enacted by King Ed. 6. But afterwards Q. Mary according to the power given her for dissolution of the said Court by Act of Parliament did dissolve the same by her Letters Patents Dat. 1. Jan. in primo Regni and the day next following by other Letters Patents united the same to the Exchequer which was utterly void because she had dissolved the same before So as she pursued not her Authority and so it was Resolved by all the Judges The end and intent of this Court was that the King might be justly dealt with touching the profit of such Religious Houses and the Court took its name from this that the Revenues of the Crown were so much augmented by the suppression of the said Religious Houses and their Lands for by the suppressing of some and the surrendring of other Religious Houses the Royal Intrado was so much increased in the time of H. 8. that for the better managing of it the King erected first the Court of Augmentations and afterwards the Court of Surveyors But in short time what by the profuseness of some and the avariciousness of others it was at last so retrenched that it was scarce able to find work enough for the Court of Exchequer Hereupon followed the dissolving of the said Two Courts in the last Parliament by this King CHAP. XXX Of Annates or First-Fruits as also of Tenths of Aumone or Frank Almoign 1. Annates what why so called paid anciently to the Pope when and by what Laws translated to the Crown a Court thereof when erected and by whom dissolved 2. The great Antiquity of Annates or First-Fruits the great Revenue it brings to the Papal See often complained of as a great grievance anciently 3. The Popes receiving of Annates compared to Aaron the High Priest's receiving Tithe of Tithes The Original Antiquity and Equity thereof controverted by some of the Ancient Canonists 4. What the Tenure of Aumone or Frank Almoigne is a description thereof with its use and end 5. The difference between Statute and Common Law touching Annates or First-Fruits whether due and payable upon Institution or not till Induction 6. To whom the Tenths of Spiritualties were anciently paid and how they came to the Crown originally 1. BY the Statute of 25 H. 8. 20. Annates and First-Fruits of Archbishopricks and Bishopricks seem to be one and the same thing and were Anciently paid to the See of Rome and that throughout all Christendom as were also the Primitiae First-Fruits or Profits of every Spiritual Living but were afterwards by another Statute translated from the Pope to the Prince For the due regulation whereof there was a Court purposely crected by a Third Statute whereby it was made a Court of Record and commonly called the Court of the First-Fruits and Tenths and so continued until it was dissolved by Queen Mary since which time it was never restored albeit the Profits were reduced again to the Crown by Queen Elizabeth and the matters thereof to be transacted were transferred to the Exchequer The First-Fruits after the last Avoidance were probably called Annates because they took their measures from the rate or proportion of one years profit of all Spiritual Livings and Promotions and accordingly are to be compounded for so that these Annates Primitiae and First-Fruits are all one and it was anciently the value of every Spiritual Living by the year which the Pope claiming the disposal of all Ecclesiastical Livings reserved These and Improprâ—ations began about the time that Polydore Virgil lib. 8. cap. 2. makes mention of vid. Concilium Viennense quod Clemens Quintus indixit pro Annatibus These First-Fruits were given to the Crown â—0 H. 8. cap. 3. Sir Ed. Coke cites an Ancient Record of this Subject â—ill 34 Ed. 1. An. 1307. At a Parliament held at Carlisle great complaint was made of Oppressions of Churches c. by William Testa called Mala Testa and Legate of the Pope in which Parliament the King with the assent of his Barons denied the payment of First-Fruits and to this effect he writ to the Pope whereupon the Pope relinquished his Demand and the First-Fruits for Two years were by that Parliament given to the King These First-Fruits or Annates Primitiae are the First-Fruits after Avoidance of every Spiritual Living for one whole year except Vicarages not exceeding 10 l. and Parsonages not exceeding 10 Marks but all are to pay Tenths Which Tenths Ecclesiastical Decimae are the Tenth part of the value of all Ecclesiastical Livings yearly payable to the King his Heirs and Successors by the said Statute of 26 H. 8. cap. 3. and 1 Eliz. to be valued according to the value of Ecclesiastical Livings which were sometimes valued by a Book of Taxation made in 20 Ed. 1. which remaineth in the Exchequer and by another Taxation in 26 H. 8. which also remaineth in that Court. And according to this latter Taxation are the values of Ecclesiastical Livingss computed for the First-Fruits and Tenths The Lord Coke says That the Bishop of Norwich had in 19 Ed. 3. by Prescription time out of mind c. First-Fruits within his Diocess of all Churches after every Avoidance But these were also given to the Crown by the Statute of 26 H. 8. cap. 3. And as for the Tenths the Canâ—nists do hold That the Pope pretended to have them Jure Divino as due to the High Priest by pretence of these words Praecipe Levitis atque denuncia cum acceperitis à filiis Israel Decimas quas dedi vobis Primitias earum offerte Domino id est decimam partem Decimae ut reputetur vobis in Oblationem Primitiarum tam de areis quam de torcularibus universis quorum accipietis Primitias offerte Domino date ea Aaron Sacerdoti But the Parliaments in 25 H. 8. and 26 H. 8. were not of opinion that these Tenths did belong to the Bishop of Rome as appears by the several Preambles of the Statutes then enacted And had they been due Jure Divino to the Pope it is not probable that Queen Mary by the Act of 2 3 Ph. M. c. 4. would have exonerated and discharged the Clergy thereof nor refused to have had them paid to the Pope nor could the Bishop of Norwich as aforesaid have prescribed to have First-Fruits within his Diocess if they had
of Alimony was commanded to be put out of their Commission And upon that Richardson said to Hitcham move this again when the Court is full for we may advise of this Et adjournat c. One Broke was committed by the High Commissioners to the Fleet because he refused Alimony to his Wife and that being returned upon an Habeas Corpus he was delivered Broke's Case More 's Rep. 18. The Wife complains against her Husband in the Ecclesisiastical Court Causa saevitiae for that he gave her a Box on the Ear and spit on her Face and whirl'd her about and called her damned Whore Which was not by Libel but by Verbal accusation after reduced to writing The Husband denies it and the Court ordered the Husband to give to his Wife 4 l. every Week pro expensis litis and Alimony Barkley and Henden moved for a prohibition The Suit is originally Causa saevitiae and as a Case wherein they Assess Alimony And now for a ground of a prohibition it was said that the Husband chastised his Wife for a reasonable cause as by the Law of the Land he might which they denied and said that they had Jurisdiction in these matters de saevitia c. And afterwards that the Wife departed and that they were reconciled again And then that reconciliation took away that Saevitiâ— before as reconciliation after Elopement Richardson it was said here that the Suit was without Libel but that is no ground of a prohibition for she proceeded upon that matter reduced in Articles and we cannot grant a Prohibition if they proceed in their Form For we are not Judges of their Form But if they will deny a Copy of the Libel a Prohibition lies by the Statute You say that an Husband may give reasonable chastisement to his Wife and we have nothing to do with it But only that the Husband may be bound to his good behaviour by the Common Law And the Sentence in Causa saevitiae is a mensa thoro and we cannot examine what is Cruelty and what not And certainly the matter alledged is Cruelty for spitting in the Face is punishable in the Star-Chamber But if the Husband had pleaded a Justification and set forth a Provocation to him by his Wife to give her reasonable castigation then there would be some colour of a Prohibition Henden we have made such an Allegation and it is absolutely refused Hutton perhaps he is in Contempt and then they will not admit any Plea as if one be Out-lawed at Common Law he cannot bring an Action But they advised the Plaintiff to tender a Justification and if they refused it then to move for a Prohibition 19. B. was ordered by the High Commission-Court to give Alimony to his Wife and was bound in an obligation of 300 l. to one of the Doctors there to give her Alimony and to use her as his Wife And now he is sued there again and it is alledged against him that he had committed Adultery with divers Women and that he had not given Alimony to his Wife and thereupon B. was put to his Oath who answered that as to the point of Alimony he was not bound to answer for that he was bound in an obligation to perform it and also that he was sued to discover upon his Oath the forfeiture of the Obligation and for that the Defendant would make no other answer he was committed to Prison and being brought hither by Habeas Corpus the Court was prayed that he might be released for the reason aforesaid Coke Gawens Case which was ruled here in Wrays time was the same Case in effect and it was ruled that the Ecclesiastical Court may not examine him upon his Oath in such Case and per Curiam B. was Bailed till the next Term for that that was the last day of the Term. Coke for that there is an obligation taken in this Case I will grant a Prohibition for taking an Obligation for that if it be moved and it was not well done to take the obligation to one of the Doctors but we use to take the obligation in the Kings Name Mich. 5. E. 4. B. R. Rot. 143. The Statute of 2 H. 4 gives authority to Bishops to Fine and Imprison for Heresie And where one Reser had given a Legacy to Bishop Stephens for which he sued the Executor who being for not payment thereof Excommunicated said that he was not Excommunicated before God although he were before Men for his Corn grew very well for which words he was after Imprisoned but he was bailed here per Curiam upon an Habeas corpus for that it was not Heresie because that Court hath Authority to examine such things which are given by the Statute of 10. H. 7. One said that the Tenth part of Tythes was not due Jure Divino for which words he was Imprisoned whereupon the Habeas Corpus was brought and that depended till 14. H. 7. at which time it was adjudged that it was not Heresie and that the Court had Jurisdiction to examine that it being given by Statute And it seems to me that the High Commission Court had not power to Fine or Imprison for Alimony Hill 12. Jac. upon an Habeas Corpus by one Codd the return was that he was Imprisoned by the High Commission by that Warrant viz. We command you to take him and Imprison him for manifest Contempt to the Court for that he being ordered to receive his Wife and to enter into an obligation to use her as his Wife he refuses so to do Coke he shall be Bail'd for that he could not be imprisoned by them for Alimony nor take obligation to perform their order Sentence was given in the Ecclesiastical Court that the Wife should be separated from her Husband propter saevitiam of the Husband and Alimony allowed her there the Husband prayed a Prohibition setting forth he desired a Cohabitation and proffered Caution thereby to use her fitly The Court denied it because the Court of the Ordinary is the proper Court for allowance of Alimony A Libel was before the High Commissioners which supposed divers cruelties used by the Husband against the Wife for which she was enforced to depart from him who would not allow her maintenance and therefore she sued before them for Alimony But because it is a Suit properly suable before the Ordinary wherein if there be wrong the party may have an appeal and although it be one of the Articles within their Commission to determine of yet because it is not any of the clauses within the Stat. of 1 E. 6. for which causes the Commission is ordained the Court awarded a Prohibition CHAP. XXXVII Of Defamation 1. What Defamation is how many ways it may be and where Cognizable 2. Two ways of prosecution at the Civil Law in Causes of Defamation 3. Prohibition for suing in the Ecclesiastical Court upon the words Drunkard and Drunken Fellow 4. Several differences in
of Sacriledge doth distinguish between Excommunication latam and ferendam for if it be Sacriledge committed against an Ecclesiastical Person then according to the Canon Law and as heretofore practised in this Realm the penalty was Excommunicatio lata but when it is in respect of some things pertaining to the Church in that case the Punishment was Excommunicatio ferenda Lindw de immun Eccl. c. 1. glo in ver omnibus poenis And sometimes a pecuniary punishment was inflicted for Sacriledge 17. q. 4. c. quisquis c. si quis contumax The Ecclesiastical Law doth not punish Sacriledge with that austerity and severity as the Civil Law doth l. Sacrilegio ff ad Leg. Jul. peculat whereby the punishment sometimes is Damnatio ad bestias sometimes the Sacrilegious person is burnt alive sometimes hung on Fonk sometimes condemned to the Mines sometimes banished and sometimes sentenced to death in the ordinary way of Execution He that is guilty of Sacriledge against an Ecclesiastical person is by the Canon Law excommunicatus ipso facto 17. q. 4. c. si quis suadente But if it be in rebus Ecclesiae he is by that Law Excommunicandus de Foro compet c. conquestus If it be committed in the Church and that by firing or breaking it open in that Case the Sacrilegious person is ipso jure excommunicated de sent Excom c. conquesti If it be without burning or breaking it open as when a thing being left in the Church is taken away in that Case he ought to be excommunicated De furtib c. fin And this says Lindwood may stand as a rule in Law that wherever you find that regularly the Sacrilegious person is not ipso jure excommunicated majori Excommunicatione it hath these several Fallentias that is it doth not hold in case of Burning violating spoiling and wasting of the Church nor in burning or breaking open the Church door nor in Sacriledge against an Ecclesiastical person nor in case of striking or violently apprehending any man in the Church nor in any forcible or violent taking away any thing out of the Church nor in any that were excommunicated before for the like Offence nor in such as pull down or demolish the Body of the Church or any part thereof and the like Lindw de immu Eccl. c. ut invadentib glo in ver Excomunicati All which is likewiseexpresly set down in John de Athon's Gloss on Cardinal Othobon's Constitutions de abstrahentib Confug ad Eccles c. ad tutelam glo in ver Obsevari and seems to have an adequate affinity with what Solomon who as in other things so specially in matters of the Temple had the best experience says It is a suare to the man who devoureth that which is Holy Pro. 20. 25. 7. The dreadful Curse denounced against Sacrilegious persons appears in that remarkable passage in Parliament above Four hundred years since where the Priviledges of the Clergy and Franchises of the Church were with the Liberties of the People granted confirmed and settled by the King in full Parliament Anno 1253. in such a solemn manner as no History can parallel The King stood up with his Hand upon his Breast all the Lords Spiritual and Temporal stood with burning Tapers in their Hands the Archbishop pronounceth as followeth viz. By the Authority of God Omnipotent of the Son and of the Holy Ghost c. We Excommunicate Anathematize and sequester from our Holy Mother the Church all those who henceforth knowingly and maliciously deprive and spoil Churches of their right and all those that shall by any art or wit rashly violate diminish or alter secretly or openly in Deed Word or Counsel those Ecclesiastical Liberties c. Granted by our Lord the King to the Archbishops Bishops Prelates c. For everlasting memory whereof we have hereunto put our Seal After which all throwing down their Tapers extinguish'd and smoaking they all said So let all that shall go against this Curse be extinct and stink in Hell And Ethelwolphus the second sole Monarch among the Saxon on Kings having by advice of his Nobles granted for ever to God and the Church both the Tithe of all Goods and the tenth part of all the Lands of England free from all secular Service Taxes or Impositions whatsover concludes the said Grant or Charter of Donation in these words viz. Qui augere voluerit nostram Donationem augeat Omnipotens Deus dies ejus prosperos si quis vero mutare vel minuere praesumpserit noscat se ad Tribunal Christi rationem redditurum 8. Dr. Heylyn in his Ecclesia Restaurata relates a remarkable passage touching a sad Judgment that in the time of Queen Mary befell Buckly Bishop of Bangor An. 1541. for the Sacrilegious havock he made of the Lands and Patrimony of that Church who not content to alienate the Lands and weaken the Estate thereof resolved to rob it also of its Bells for fear perhaps of having any knell rung out at the Churches Funeral and not content to sell the Bells which were five in number he would needs satisfie himself with seeing them conveyed on Shipboard and had scarce given himself that satisfaction but was immediately struck blind and so continued from that time to the day of his death CHAP. XXXIX Of Simony 1. The Definition and description of Simony the penalties thereof 2. The difference between Simoniacus and Simoniace Promotus the latitude of that word Simony 3. How the anuual value of the Benefice is computable upon the Forfeiture by reason of Simony 4. Whether a Clerk Simoniacally presented but not privy to the Simony be disabled for that turn to be presented by the King to the same Church 5. The diversifications of Simoniacal Contracts or the various ways of committing Simony 6. An Obligation to present one upon condition of resignation may not be Simony 7. To promise one a Sum of Money to bestow his endeavour to procure one to be presented to a Benefice is a Simoniacal Contract 8. Several ways of contracting obliging and agreeing which will amount to Simony 9. A Clerk may oblige to his Patron to pay a Sum yearly and yet no Simony 10. The Plea of Simony is a good Barr to the Parsons demand of Tithes 11. Whether the Fathers free Covenant with his Son in Law upon the Marriage of his Daughter to present him to such a Living when it falls be Simony 12. Whether a SimoniacalVsurper shall prejudice the rightful Patron by giving the King the presentation 13. Whether an Incumbent that is in by Simony may after a General Pardon be removed 14. The grand Case of Calvert and Kitching at the Common Law touching Simony 15. To convey a corrupt gift by an innocent hand will not excuse it from being Simony 16. The Kings Case against the Archbishop of Canterbury Sir John Hall and Richard Clark touching Simony 17. The Proof of Simony in a Parson is good to harr him of Tithes 18. A Patrons Presentation upon
Men which belong to the Blessed Hill They abstained from things that have life and some of them from Marriage One Dosithens a Samaritan is supposed to be the first Founder of the Samaritam Heresies and the first among them that rejected the Prophets as not having spoken by the Holy Ghost There were four sects of Samaritan Hereticks according to Epiphanius each of them holding their different Heresies in some respects and having in other respects certain Heretical Tenents common to them all By all which premisses it is most evident that the Prince of Darkness and the Father of Lyes hath had in all Ages Nations and Churches his Emissaries to infect them with Heretical and Blasphemous Erros but the Gates or Power of Hell to this day never could nor to Eternity ever shall prevail against the Truth CHAP. XLI Of Councils Synods and Convocations 1. The several kinds of Councils and Synods 2. What Canons in force in the Realm of Primo Ed. 6. Also how the Canons entituled Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum became abortive 3. That part of the Canon Law is part of the Law of England 4. Convocation in England what how and by what Authority and for what ends conven'd also of what Members it doth consist with the Authority thereof 5. Convocations and Provincial Synods of very great Antiquity in England have been ever call'd by the Kings Writ their Priviledges 6. The Canons and Ecclesiastical Constitutions may not be repugnant either to the Kings Prerogative or to the Laws Statutes or Customes of this Realm 7. Lindwood's Method of Provincial Synods in this Realm and under what Archbishops 8. The four several kinds of Councils and Synods in general 9. A compendious Catalogue thereof when and where held by and under whom conven'd with the principal matters therein treated and determined 1. OF Councils or Synods there are four kinds viz. 1 Oecumenical as being called out divers Nations 2 National as out of divers Provinces both these kinds of Councils or Synods were ever assembled by Imperial Regal or Papal Authority 3 Provincial as out of divers Dioceses conven'd by Metropolitans or Patriarchs 4 Diocesan as out of one Diocese onely assembled by the Bishop thereof The frequent celebration of Synods the Council of Basil calls praecipuam agri Domini culturam Touching Synods vid. Duar. de Sacr. Eccl. minist et benefic 2. In the Reign of King Hen. 8. the Bishops and Clergy in the Convocation an 1532. oblig'd themselves neither to make nor execute any Canons or Constitutions Ecclesiastical but as they were thereto enabled by the Kings Authority it was by them desired by him assented unto and confirm'd in Parliament that all such Canons and Constitutions Synodal and Provincial as were before in use and neither repugnant to the word of God the Kings prerogative Royal or the known Laws of the Land should remain in force until a Review thereof were made by 30 persons of the Kings appointment which Review not having been made from that time to the first year of King Edward 6. All the said old Canons and Constitutions so restrained and qualified did then still remain in force as before they were For this consult the Act of Parliament of 25 H. 8. c. 1. And in the Third year of the said King Edward 6. there passed an Act in Parliament For enabling the King to nominate Eight Bishops and as many Temporal Lords and Sixteen Members of the Lower House of Parliament for Reviewing of such Canons and Constitutions as remained in force by virtue of the Statute made in the 25th year of King H. 8. and fitting them for the use of the Church in all times succeeding According to which Act the King directed a Commission to Archbishop Cranmer and the rest of the Persons whom he thought fit to nominate to that employment and afterwards appointed a Sub-Committee of Eight persons to prepare the Work and make it ready for the rest that it might be dispatch'd with the more expedition which said Eight persons were the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Goodrick Bishop of Ely Dr. Cox the Kings Almoner Peter Martyr Dr. in Divinity William May and Rowland Taylor Drs. of Laws John Lucas and Richard Goodrick Esquires by whom the Work was undertaken and digested fashioned according to the method of the Roman Decretals and called by the name of Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum c But not being Commissionated hereunto till the Eleventh of November in the year 1551. they either wanted time to Communicate to the chief Commissioners by whom it was to be presented to the King or found the King encumber'd with more weighty Affairs than to attend the perusal thereof And so the King dying before he had given life unto it by his Royal Assent and Signiture the design miscarried and never since thought fit to be resumed in the following Times by any of those who have had the Government of the Church or were concerned in the honour and safety thereof 3. It is asserted by good Authority That if the Canon Law be made part of the Law of this Realm then it is as much the Law of the Land and as well and by the same Authority as any other part of the Law of the Land Likewise in the Case of Shute against Higden touching Voidance of a Former Benefice by being Admitted and Instituted into a Second and that by the Ancient Canon Law received in this Kingdom This says the same Authority is the Law of the Kingdom in such cases And in the Case of Hill against Good the same Author doth further assert That a Lawful Canon is the Law of the Kingdom as well as an Act of Parliament And whatever is the Law of the Kingdom is as much the Law as any thing else is so for what is Law doth not suscipere magis minus Which Premisses though they may seem yet are not inconsistent with what Sr. Ed. Coke says viz. That the Laws of England are not derived from any Forein Law either Canon Civil or other but a special Law appropriated to this Kingdom That it may be said of its Law as of its situation Et penitus toto divisos Orbo Britannos 4 Convocation is the highest Ecclesiastical Court or Assembly called and convened in time of Parliament by the Kings Writ directed to the Archbishops consisting of all the Clergy of both Provinces either Personally or Representatively present in the Upper House of the Archbishops and Bishops and the Lower House of the other Clergy or their Proctors chosen and appointed to appear for Cathedral or other Collegiate Churches and for the Common Clergy of every Diocess with a Prolocutor of each House and President of the Convocation for the Province of Canterbury to consult of matters Ecclesiastical and thereon to Treat Agree Consent and Conclude as occasion requires on certain Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical to be ratified and confirmed by the Royal Assent They were Anciently called
Church-gemote Int. Leges H. 1. c. 8. The Convocation is under the power and Authority of the King 21 Ed. 4. 45. b. Assembled only by the Kings Writ 13 Ed. 3. Rot. Parl. M. 1. vid. Stat. 25 H. 8. c. 19. The King having directed his Writ therein assigning the time and place to each of the Archbishops to the effect aforesaid the Archbishop of Canterbury doth thereupon direct his Letters to the Bishop of London as his Dean Lindw Provin Sec. 1. de Poenis ver Tanquam in Gloss First Citing himself peremptorily then willing him to Cite in like manner all the Bishops Deans Archdeacons Cathedral and Collegiate Churches and generally all the Clergy of his Province to the Place at the day in the said Writ prefixed withal directing that one Proctor for every Cathedral or Collegiate Church and two for the other Clergy of each Diocess may suffice In pursuance whereof the Bishop of London directs his Letters accordingly willing them to certifie the Archbishop the Names of all such as shall be so Monished by them in a Schedule annexed to their Letters Certificatory whereupon the Cathedral and Collegiate Churches and the other Churches having Elected their Proctors it is certified to the Bishop who makes due Returns thereof which method is likewise observed in the other Province of York It is said That these Proctors anciently had Place and Vote in the Lower House of Parliament a good expedient for the maintenance and preservation of the Liberties of the Church The Prolocutor of the Lower House of Convocation is immediately at the first Assembly by the motion of the Bishops chosen by that Lower House and presented to the Bishops as their Prolocutor by whom they intend to deliver their Resolutions to the higher House and to have their own House specially ordered and governed His Office is to cause the Clerk to call the Names of the Members of that House as oft as he shall see cause likewise to see all things propounded to be read by him to gather the Suffrages or Votes and the like Trin. 8 Jac. It was Resolved by the two Chief Justices and divers other Justices at a Committee before the Lords of Parliament concerning the Authority of a Convocation 1 That a Convocation cannot Assemble without the Assent of the King 2 That after their Assembling they cannot conferr to constitute any Canons without License del Roy. 3 When upon Conference they conclude any Canons yet they cannot execute any of them without the Royal Assent 4 They cannot execute any after Royal Assent but with these Limitations viz. 1 That they be not against the Kings Prerogative 2 Nor against Statute Law 3 Nor against the Common Law 4 Nor against the Customes of the Realm All which appears by 25 H. 8. c. 19. 19. Ed. 3. Title Quare non Admisit 7. 10. H. 7. 17. Merton cap. 9. By 2 H. 6. 13. a Convocation may make Constitutions to bind the Spiritualty because they all in person or by Representation are present but not the Temporalty Q. And 21 Ed. 4. 47. the Convocation is Spiritual and so are all their Constitutions Vid. The Records in Turri 18 H. 8. 8 Ed. 1. 25 Ed. 1. 11 Ed. 2. 15 Ed. 2. Prohibitio Regis ne Clerus in Congregatione sua c. attemptet contra jus seu Coronam c. By which it appears that they can do nothing against the Law of the Land or the Kings Prerogative 5. The word Convocation and the word Synod are rather words of two Languages than things of two significations for although they have different derivations the former from the Latin the other from the Greek yet in effect they both center in the same thing Convocation à Convocando because they are called together by the Kings Writ It is of very great Antiquity according to Sir Edward Coke who mentions out of Mr. Bede and other Authors and ancient Records such as were nigh a thousand years since and more expresly of one great Synod held by Austins Assembling the Britain Bishops in Council An. 686. And affirms That the Clergy was never Assembled or called together at a Convocation but by the Kings Writ And in the year 727. there was a Convocation of the Clergy called Magna Servorum Dei frequentia It was by the assistance and authority of Ethelbert the first Christian King of Kent that Austin called the aforesaid Assembly of the British Bishops and Doctors that had retained the Doctrine of the Gospel to be held in the borders of the Victians and West-Saxons about Southampton as supposed to which resorted as Mr. Bede says Seven Bishops and many other Learned Divines but this Synod or Convocation suddenly brake up without any thing done or resolved This Assembly was conven'd for determining the time for the Celebration of Easter touching which the Controversie continuing no less than 90 years after was at last concluded at another Convocation purposely called at Whitby by the Authority of Oswy King of Northumberland and whereof the Reverend Cedda newly Consecrated Bishop was Prolocutor and King Oswy himself present at the Assembly Likewise about the year 1172. at Cassils in Ireland a Convocation was held by Authority of King H. 2. soon after he had Conquered that Island which Convocation was for the Reformation of the Irish Church where amongst many other Constitutions it was Decreed That all the Church-Lands and all their Possessions should be altogether free from the Exaction of Secular men and that from thenceforth all Divine things should be handled in every part of Ireland in such sort as the Church of England handleth them Likewise about the year 1175. at London a Synod or Convocation was held at which King H. 2. was present where among other Canons and Constitutions it was both by Authority of the King and Synod decreed That every Patron taking a Reward for any Presentation should for ever lose the Patronage thereof Which together with other Canons then made for the better government of the Church of England were Published by Richard Archbishop of Canterbury with the Kings Assent Likewise a Provincial Synod was held at Oxford by Stephen Langton Archbishop of Canterbury under King H. 3. about the year 1222. for Reformation of the Clergy with many others in subordination to the Laws of the Land One special Priviledge of the Convocation appears by 8 H. 6. cap. 1. All the Clergy from henceforth to be called to the Convocation by the Kings Writ and their Servants and Familiars shall for ever hereafter fully use and enjoy such liberty and Immunity in coming tarrying and returning as the Great men and Commonalty of the Realm of England called or to be called to the Kings Parliament have used or ought to have or enjoy 8 H. 6. In Parliamento Statutum est ut Praelati atque Clerici câ—rumque Famulatus cum ad Synodos accesserint iisdem Privilegiis ac
Immunitatibus gaudeant quibus Milites Burgenses Parliamenti Ant. Brit. fo 284. nu 30. 6. The Jurisdiction of the Convocation in this Realm though relating to matters meerly Spiritual and Ecclesiastical yet is subordinate to the establish'd Laws of the Land it being Provided by the Statute of 25 H. 8. c. 19. That no Canons Constitutions or Ordinances shall be made or put in execution within this Realm by Authority of the Convocation of the Clergy repugnant to the Prerogative Royal or to the Customes Laws or Statutes of this Realm To the same effect was that of 9 Ed. 1. Rot. Parl. Memb. 6. Inhibitio Archiepiscopo omnibus Episcopis aliis Praelatis apud Lambeth Conventuris ne aliquid statuant in praejudicium Regis Coronam vel dignitatem For although the Archbishop and the Bishops and the rest of the Clergy of his Province Assembled in a Synod have power to make Constitutions in Spiritual things yet they ought to be Assembled by Authority of the King and to have as aforesaid his Royal Assent to their Constitutions which being had and obtained the Canons of the Church made by the Convocation and the King without Parliament shall bind in all matters Ecclesiastical as well as an Act of Parliament as was Resolved in Bird and Smiths Case Although the Saxons who founded and endowed most of our Churches and made many good Laws in reference to the Jurisdiction power and priviledges thereof yet the Royal Prerogative with the Laws and Customes of the Realm were ever so preserved as not to be invaded thereby King AEthelbert the first Saxon King King Ina AEthelstane Edmund Edgar and King Kanute all these made Laws in favour of the Church but none of them ever entrenched on the Prerogative of the Crown or on the Laws or Customes of the Realm nor any of those ancient Church-Laws ever made without the Supream Authority to ratifie and confirm the same 7. The Laws and Constitutions whereby the Ecclesiastical Government is supported and the Church of England governed are the General Canons made by General Councils also the Arbitria Sanctorum Patrum the Decrees of several Archbishops and Bishops the Ancient Constitutions made in our several Provincial Synods either by the Legates Otho and Othobon or by several Archbishops of Canterbury All which by the 25 H. 8. are in force in England so far as they are not repugnant to the Kings Prerogative the Laws and Customes of England Also the Canons made in Convocations of Later times as Primo Jacobi Regis and confirmed by his Regal Authority Also in some Statutes Enacted by Parliament touching Ecclesiastical affairs together with divers Customes not written but in use beyond the memory of Man and where these fail the Civil Law takes place Among the Britain Councils according to Bishop Prideaux his Synopsis of Councils Edit 5. those amongst the rest are of most remark viz. At Winchester in King Edgars time under Dunstane at Oxford by Stephen Langton Archbishop of Canterbury at Claringdon under King Henry the Second The Council under King Edward the 6 th in which the 39 Articles of the English Confession was concluded and confirmed The Synod under the same King from which we receive the English Liturgy which now we have composed by Seven Bishops and Four Doctors and confirmed by the publick consent of the Church which as also the said 39 Articles the succeeding Princes Queen Eliz. King James and King Charles ratified and commended to Posterity At London a Synod in which 141 Canons or Constitutions relating to the pious and peaceable Government of the Church presented to King James by the Synod and confirmed by his Regal Authority and at Perth in Scotland where were Articles concerning Administring the Sacrament to the Sick Private Baptism where Necessity requires Confirmation admitting Festivals Kneeling at the Receiving the Sacrament and an allowance of Venerable Customes But de Concil Britan. vid. D. Spelman The Ancient Canons of the Church and Provincial Constitutions of this Realm of England were according to Lindwood the Canonist who being Dean of the Arches compiled and explained the same in the time of King H. 6. made in this order or method and under these Archbishops of Canterbury viz. The Canons or Constitutions 1. Of Stephen Langton Cardinal Archbishop of Canterbury in the Council at Oxford in the year of our Lord 1222 who distinguish'd the Bible into Chapters 2. Of Otho Cardinal the Popes Legate in Anno 1236. on whose Constitutions John de Athon Dr. of Laws and one of the Canons of Lincoln did comment or gloss 3. Of Boniface Archbishop of Cant. 1260. 4. Of Othobon Cardinal of St. Adrian and Legate of the Apostolical Chair on whose Constitutions the said John de Athon did likewise Glossematize His Canons were made at London in Anno 1268. 5. Of John Peckham Archbishop of Canterbury at a Synod held at Reding An. 1279. 6. Of the same Peckham at a Synod held at Lambeth An. 1281. 7. Of Robert Winchelse Archbishop of Canterbury An. 1305. 8. Of Walter Reynold Archbishop of Canterbury at a Synod held at Oxford An. 1322. These Constitutions in some Books are ascribed to Simon Mepham but erroneously for the date of these Constitutions being An. 1322. the said Walter Reynold according to the Chronicle died in An. 1327. and was succeeded by Simon Mepham 9. Of Simon Mepham Archbishop of Cant. An. 1328. 10. Of John Stradford Archbishop An. 13 ... 11. Of Simon Islepe Archbishop An. 1362. 12. Of Simon Sudbury Archbishop An. 1378. 13. Of Tho. Arundel Archbishop at a Synod or Council held at Oxford An. 1408. 14. Of Henry Chichley Archbishop An. 1415. 15. Of Edmond Archbishop of Canterbury 16. Of Richard Archbishop of Canterbury The Dates of the Canons or Constitutions of these Two last Lindwood makes no mention by reason of the uncertainty thereof but withal says it is clear That Richard did immediately succeed the foresaid Stephen Langton and the said Edmond succeeded Richard Lindw de Poen c. ad haec infra in verb. Mimime admittatur If so then it was most probably Richard Wethershed who was Archbishop of Canterbury An. 1229. And St. Edmond Chancellor of Oxford who was Archbishop of Canterbury An. 1234. 8. Councils were either General or Oecumenical from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereunto Commissioners by the Emperours Authority were sent from all quarters of the World where Christ hath been preached Or National or Provincial or Particular by Bullenger called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such were the Councils of Gangra Neo-caesarea and many others commonly Assembled by Patriarchs and Bishops in some particular place of a Countrey The ends of these Councils chiefly were either for the suppression of Heresies the decision of Controversies the appeasing of Schisms or the Ordaining of Canons and Constitutions for decency of Order in the Church Vid. AElfrici Canones ad Wulfinum Episcopum Can. 33. where it is said That there were Four Synods
Clergy At Braga or Bracara in Portugal An. 610. under the Reign of Gundemarus King of Gethes assembled some Bishops of Gallicia Lusitania and of the Province of Lucensis whereby it was Ordained That every Bishop should visit the Churches of his Diocess That they should receive no Rewards for Ordination of the Clergy And that a Church builded for Gain and Contribution of the People redounding to the advantage of the Builder should not be Consecrated At Auxerre in France An. 613. assembled a number of Abbots and Presbyters with one Bishop and three Deacons In this Synod they damned Sorcery made many Superstitious Constitutions as touching Masses Burials Marriages Prohibition of Meats c. At Hispalis commonly called Civil La grand in Spain in the year 634. and in the 24 th year of the Emperour Heraclius a Council was assembled by Isidorus Bishop of Hispalis at the Command of King Sisebutus for suppression of the Heresie of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Branch of the Eutychian heresie and for the decision of some Questions touching the Bounds of their Dioceses At Toledo in Spain An. 639. under the Reign of Sisenandus King of Spain by the Kings Command were more than 70 Bishops and Presbyters Conven'd upon occasion of diversity of Ceremonies and Discipline in that Kingdom This was the Fourth Council at Toledo At Toledo in the First year of Chintilla King of the Gothes about the time of the Emperour Heraclions Reign a Fifth Council was held conven'd by Eugenius Bishop of Toledo In this Council nothing considerable was done but in reference to Annual Letanies and the appointment of Supplications for the King At Rome in the year 652. was a Council convened by Martinus Pope consisting of more than 100 Bishops occasioned by the Error of the Monothelites obstinately maintained by Paulus of Constantinople and countenanced by the impious Edict of the Emperour Constans The Constitutions and Decrees made in this Council tended to condemn those that denied the Trinity the Divine Unity in the Divine Nature the Manifestation of the Second Person of the Trinity and his Sufferings in the Flesh At Toledo in the year 653. a Sixth Council was held consisting of Fifty two Bishops whereof Eugenius Bishop of Toledo was President The occasion whereof was the Renovation of Old Heresies and Contradiction to precedent Councils The Fourth Canon of this Council is against Simony and the Eighteenth is against Rebellion At Toledo in the year 662. a Seventh Council is held of 4 Archbishops 50 Bishops and many Presbyters The First Canon of this Council is against Sedition and Treason By the Fourth Canon it is forbidden That Bishops in their Visitations should extort or oppress their Churches At Quinisext so termed by Balsemon the same year viz. 662. was held a Council which by Bede and many others is accounted an Erroneous Synod it was convened under Justinian the Second and Pope Sergius wherein the Fathers thought fit to supply the defect of the Fifth aud Sixth precedent Synods in reference to manners and Ecclesiastical Discipline for which reason they ratified 102 Canons in the Trullo of the Imperial Palace whence they are called Trullans These are rejected by such Latins whose consent went not to the stablishment thereof specially not empowr'd and authoriz'd thereto by the Pope In the 36 th Canon thereof the Patriarch of Constantinople is equalled to the Roman and in the 13 th Canon Matrimony is granted to the Clergy At Chalon in Burgandy by the Command of Clodoveus K. of France a Council of 44 Bishops assembled wherein the Canons of the Nicene Council had great approbation And it was Forbidden That Two Bishops should be Ordained in one City and Decreed That no Secular work should be done on the Lords Day At Rome in the time of Constantinus Pogonatus Emperour under the Popedom of Agatho was held a Council wherein it was Declared by the Suffrages of 125 Bishops That Two wills and Two operations were to be acknowledged in Christ and the Defenders of the Heresie of the Monothelites were condemned At Toledo in the year 671. an Eighth Council of 52 Bishops was assembled wherein were high Debates concerning Perjury At last it was Resolved That no Necessity obligeth a man to perform an unlawful Oath In this Council Marriage was utterly forbidden to Bishops and eating of Flesh in Lent At Toledo in the year 673. and in the Seventh year of Recesuvindus King of Gothes and by his Command were convened 16 Bishops which was the Ninth Council at that place and in which several Canons were made touching the Discipline of the Church At Toledo in the Eighth year of the said Kings Reign was the Tenth Council consisting of 21 Bishops who made some Decrees touching certain Festivals and others relating to the Clergy and removed Protamius Bishop of Bracara from his Office being convict of Adultery At Toledo in the Seventh year of Bamba King of Gothes 19 Bishops and Seven Abbots were assembled by the Kings Command wherein several Canons were made concerning Ecclesiastical Discipline At Bracara a Second Council was held the first according to Caranza wherein many old Opinions of the Priscilianists and Manichaeans concerning Prohibition of Marriage and Meats are condemned together with the Heresies of Samosatenus Photinus Cerdon and Marcion And in the 30 th Canon of this Council it was Ordained That no Poesie should be Sung in the Church except the Psalter of the Old Testament At Bracara in Spain in the time of Bombas King of Gothes another Synod of Eight Bishops was assembled wherein the Nicene Faith is again rehearsed In the Fifth Canon of this Synod it is Ordained That upon Festival days Reliques enclosed in an Ark shall be born on the Shoulders of the Levites as the Ark of God in the Old Testament was accustomed to be born At Constantinople in the year 680. in the Twelfth year of the Reign of Constantine Pogonatus a General Council was held Pope Agatho procuring it by his Legates In this Council were convened 150 Bishops they who reckon 270 or 286 do compute the Absent Romans and others consenting thereto the Emperour himself was President In this Council was discussed the Question touching the Wills and Actions of Christ Here were condemned the Monothelites Sergius Cyrus Pyrrhus Peter Paul Theodorus together with Pope Honorius who in the defence of Eutychianism pleaded that there was one only Will in Christ This Council confirmed the Canons not only of General but also of Particular foregoing Synods as of Antioch Laodicea and others It also added what was to be approved in the Orthodox Writings of the Fathers as appears by the Second Canon of this Council Vid. Paul Diacon in vit Constant At Toledo the Twelfth Council consisting of 33 Bishops with some Abbots and 13 of the Nobility assembled the first year of the Reign of Euringius to whom Bombas King of
the Gothes resigned his Royal Authority chusing rather to be Shaven than to wear a Crown and to enter into a Monastery than to fit on the Throne of Majesty This Council as to the Confession of Faith adhered to the Council of Nice and confirmed the Acts made in precedent Councils against the Jews Other Councils there were at Toledo under the Reigns of Euringius and Egista but not of such Remark as needs any apology for their omission At London in the year 712. under the Saxons Reign a Council was assembled at which the Popes Legate Bonifacius and the chief Prelate of England Brithwaldus was present The two grand Points treated in this Council were concerning the Worshipping of Images and Prohibiting Marriage to persons in Spiritual Orders At Constantinople about the same year of 712. a Council was called by the Emperour Philippicus for the undoing or the Sixth General Council wherein the Error of the Monothelites was condemned At Rome in the year 714. a Council was Assembled by Pope Gregory the Second whereat two Bishops of Britain were present Sedulius and Fergustus Most of the Canons made at this Council did concern Marriage Masses Sâ—rceries and the Mandates of the Apostolick Chair At Rome a great Council of 903 Bishops was assembled by Pope Gregory the Third having received a Mandate from the Emperour Leo for the Abolishing of Images In this Council was the Emperour Leo Excommunicated and deprived of his Imperial Dignity because he had disallowed the Worshipping of Images Now is the Popes Banner displaied against the Emperour which is the Forerunner of that Enmity which ensued between the Pope and the Emperours In France in the year 742. under the Reign of Charles the Great Zacharias the First being then Pope a National Council of the Bishops Presbyters and Clergy of France was assembled by Bonifacius Archbishop of Mentz according to the Mandate of King Charles This Council was called for Reformation of Abuses in that Countrey or rather to reduce it to a conformity unto the Rites of the Roman Church At Constantinople in the year 755. and the Thirteenth year of the Emperour Constantinus Copronymus a General Council of 338 Bishops was Assembled by the Emperours Command In this Council the Worshipping of Images was damned and the placing of them in Oratories and Temples as a Custome borrowed from the Pagans was forbidden yet in the 15 th and 17 th Canons of this Council the Invocation of Saints is allowed The Council of Constantinople is by some accounted two which others contract into one but the distinction it seems is manifest because the first is said to be celebrated under Father Leo Isaurus An. 730. The Second by Constantius Copronymus in the year 755 as aforesaid The one opposeth the Worshipping of Images and Reliques on which account both may be esteemed as one or at least united The first under Leo discovers Intercession of Saints to be imaginary and the Worshipping of Images meer Idolatry Germanus Patriarch of Constantinople and John Damascene and others too much inclined to Images are deprived of their Dignities Gregory the Third intercedes for Images in a Roman Anti-Synod in which he Excommunicated the Eastern with the mark of Heretical Image-breakers but this did not terrifie the said Constantine Copronymus from declaring himself to be an Image-breaker but assembled 338 Bishops at Constantinople as aforesaid over whom himself was President and persecuted the Maintainers of Images Some will have This and the Seventh Council as Occumenical but the Romans so abhorr'd it that for this Controversie about Images they denied their Subjection to the Greek Emperours whenc afterwards ensued the Western and Eastern Division never to be reconciled How well the Nicene Council corrected the Errors of this appears by the Decrees thereof At Francfurt in the year 794. a Council was convened but it is not agreed whether it was an Occumenical or Provincial Council the more Ancient Writers will have it to be Oecumenical because it was called by Charles the Great and Adrian the First and it consisted of at least 300 Bishops yet the latter Writers will have it Provincial because it seems not to favour Images The Reason of the convening of this Council was because Elipardus Archbishop of Toledo and Felix Vrgelitanus Bishop of Aurelia or Orleance in France preached That Christ was only the Adopted Son of God which Aquinas refutes 3. part q. 23. art 4. But Binius with Longus and others will have it that this Council or Synod confirmed the Opinion of the 2 d Nicene Council concerning the Adoration of Images which Bellarmine will not believe though he wishes it to be true At Nice in Bythinia in the year 788. a Council of 350 Bishops was assembled in which it was Ordained That the Image of Christ the Blessed Virgin Mary and of the Saints should not only be received into places of Adoration but also should be adored and worshipped At Frankford in the year 794. a great Council was assembled by Charles the Great King of France partly by reason of the Heretick Felix who called Christ the Adopted Son of God in his Humane Nature and was condemned in a Council at Ratisbone An. 742. partly also by reason of great Disputes that were in most places concerning the Worshipping of Images disallowed in the Council of Constantinople but allowed in the Second Council of Nice At Mentz in the year 813. by the Command of Carolus Magnus was Assembled a Council of 30 Bishops 25 Abbots with a great number of Priests Monks Counts and Judges about Reformation of the dissolute manners of Ecclesiastical and Lay-persons At Rhemes in the same year 813. a Council was Assembled by the Command of Charles the Great who not only called that Famous Council of Frankford An. 794. in which the Adoration of Images was condemned but also about one and the same time viz. An. 813. appointed Five National Councils to be convened in divers places for Reformation of the Clergy and Laity viz. at Mentz aforesaid this at Rhemes another at Tours a Fourth at Chalons and a Fifth at Aries In all which no opposition was made to the foresaid Council of Frankford nor was the Adoration of Images avowed in any of these Councils At Tours An. 813. at the Command as aforesaid of the Emperour Carolus Magnus a Council of many Bishops and Abbots was assembled for the Establishing of Ecclesiastical Discipline in Tours At Chalons An. 813. was the Fourth Council convened the same year under Charles the Great and by his Command for the Reformation of the Ecclesiastical state the Canons whereof for the most part are consonant to those made in the said former Councils under Charles the Great At Arles the same year of 813. wherein the Four preceding Councils were held another was convened by Command of Charles the Great wherein as to matters of Faith Church-Discipline Regulation of