the King Confirms and afterwards he is Inducted to the Church of D. In this Case it was Adjudged That the Dispensation came too late because it came after the Institution for by the Institution the Church is full against all persons except the King and as to the Spititualties he is full Parson by the Institution 2. Resolved That admit the Church was not full by the Institution until Induction yet the Dispensation came too late for that the words of the Statute of 21 H. 8 of Pluralities are may purchase Licence to receive and keep two Benefices with Cure of Souls and the words of Dispensation in this case were recipere retinere and because by the Institution the Church was full he could not purchase Licence to receive that which he had before and he cannot retain that which he cannot receive 26. In the case of a Prohibition it was Resolved That by the Common Law before the Statute of 21 H. 8. the first Benefice was void without a Sentence Declarative so as the Patron might present without notice 2. That the Statute of 21 H. 8. of Pluralities is a general Law of which the Judges are to take notice without pleading of it 3. That the Queen might grant Dispensations as the Pope might in case where the Archbishop had not Authority by the Statute of 25 H. 8. to grant Dispensations because all the Authority of the Pope was given to the Crown by the Statute But yet the Statute as to those Dispensations which the Archbishop is to grant hath Negative words and the Bishop shall make the Instrument under his Seal CHAP. XXVII Of Deprivation 1. What Deprivation is and in what Court to be pronounced 2. The Causes in Law of Deprivation 3. In what Cases Deprivation ipso facto without any Declaratory Sentence thereof may be 4. A Cardinal 's Case of Deprivation by reason of Miscreancy 5. The Papal Deprivation by reason of Marriage 6. What the Law is in point of Notice to the Patron in case of Deprivation by reason of meer Laity or Nonage 7. The difference of operation in Law between Malum prohibitum and Malum in se and in what Cases of Deprivation Notice ought to be given to the Patron 8. Deprivation by reason of Degradation which Degradation at the Canon Law may be two ways 9. Cawdry's Case of Deprivation for Scandalous words against the Book of Common Prayer sentenced by the High Commissioners 10. Deprivation for Non-conformity to the Ecclesiastical Canons by the High Commissioners agreed to be good 11. Deprivation for not Reading the Articles of Religion according to the Statute of 13 Eliz. 12. Deprivation by the High Commissioners for Drunkenness 13. The Church is not void by the Incumbents being Deprivable without Deprivation 14. For an Incumbent to declare his Assent to the Articles of Religion so far as they agree with the Word of God is not that unfeigned Assent which the Statute requires 15. A Church becomes void presently upon not Reading the Articles and there needs not any Deprivation in that Case 16. A Case wherein a Sentence declaratorie for Restitution makes a Nullity in the Deprivation 17. An Appeal from a Sentence of Deprivation prevents the Church's being void pro tempore 18. Vpon Deprivation for meer Laity or Incapacity the Lay-Patron must have Notice ere the Lapse incurrs against him 19. An Incumbent Excommunicated and so obstinately persisting 40 daies is Deprivable 1. DEprivation is a discharge of the Incumbent of his Dignity or Ministery upon sufficient cause against him conceived and proved for by this he loseth the Name of his First Dignity and that either by a particular Sentence in the Ecclesiastical Court or by a general Sentence by some positive or Statute-Law of this Realm So that Deprivation is an Ecclesiastical Sentence Declaratory pronounced upon due proof in the Spiritual Court whereby an Incumbent being legally discharged from Officiating in his Benefice with Cure the Church pro tempore becomes void So that it is in effect the Judicial incapacitating an Ecclesiastical person of holding or enjoying his Parsonage Vicarage or other Spiritual promotion or dignity by an Act of the Ecclesiastical Law only in the Spiritual Court grounded upon sufficient proof there of some Act or Defect of the Ecclesiastical person Deprived This is one of the means whereby there comes an Avoidance of the Church if such Sentence be not upon an Appeal repealed The causes of this Deprivation by the Canon Law are many whereof some only are practicable with us in the Ecclesiastical Laws of this Realm and they only such as are consonant to the Statutes and Common Law of this Kingdom 2. All the Causes of Deprivation may be reduced to these Three Heads 1 Want of Capacity 2 Contempt 3 Crime But more particularly It is evident that the more usual and more practicable Causes of this Deprivation are such as these viz. a meer Laity or want of Holy Orders according to the Church of England Illiterature or inability for discharge of that Sacred Function Irreligion gross Scandal some heinous Crime as Murther Manslaughter Perjury Forgery c. Villany Bastardy Schism Heresie Miscreancy Misbelief Atheism Simony Illegal Plurality Incorrigibleness and obstinate Disobedience to the approved Canons of the Church as also to the Ordinary Non-conformity Refusal to use the Book of Common Prayer or Administer the Sacraments in the order there prescribed the use of other Rites or Ceremonies order form oâ— celebrating the same or of other open and publick Prayers the preaching or publishing any thing in derogation thereof or depraving the same having formerly been convicted for the like offence the not Reading the Articles of Religion within Two months next after Induction according to the Statute of 13 Eliz cap. 12. The not Reading publickly and solemnly the Morning and Evening Prayers appointed for the same day according to the Book of Common Prayer within Two month next after Induction on the Lord's Day the not openly and publickly declaring before the Congregation there Assembled his unfeigned assent and consent after such Reading to the use of all things therein contained or in case of a lawful Impediment then the not doing thereof within one month next after the removal of such Impediment a Conviction before the Ordinary of a wilful maintaining or affirming any Doctrine contrary to the 39 Articles of Religion a persistance therein without revocation of his Error or re-affirmance thereof after such Revocation likewise Incontinency Drunkenness and 40 daies Excommunication To all which might also be added Dilapidation for it seems anciently to have been a Dilapidator was a just cause of Deprivation whether it were by destroying the Timber-trees or committing waste on the Woods of the Church-Lands or by putting down or suffering to go to decay the Houses or Edifices belonging to the same as appears by Lyford's Case as also in the Bishop of Salisbury's Case
of new improvements in their own occupation by culture Pasture and Garden-Fruits only the said Three Orders were exempted from the general payment of all Tithes whatever The Templers and Hospitallers were meer Lay-men yet they were exempted as well as the other Yet the Lateran Council in An. 1215. Ordered That this Priviledge should not extend to Covents erected since that Lateran Council nor to Lands since bestowed on the said Orders though their Covents were erected before that Council Insomuch that when the said Cistercians contrary to the Canons of that Council purchased Bulls from the Pope to discharge their Lands from Tithes King H. 4. Null'd such Bulls by the Stat. of 2 H. 4. cap. 4. and reduced their Lands to a Statu quo These Exemptions from payment of Tithes in this or that particular Religious Order was not known in the World when Aethelwolph Son of Egbert whom he succeeded as King of the West-Saxons gave as aforesaid Tithes of all his Kingdom and that freed of all Tributes Taxes and Impositions as appears by his Charter to that purpose having at a Solemn Council held at Winchester subjected the whole Kingdom of England to the payment of Tithes True it is that long before his time many Acts for Tithes may be produced such as the Imperial Edicts Canons of some Councils and Popes beside such Laws as were made by King Ina and Offa yet the said Edicts and Canons were never received in their full power into England by the consent of Prince and People nor were King Ina and Offa though Monarchs of England as it were in their turns such Kings as conveyed their Crowns to the Issue of their Bodies but the said Aethelwolph was Monarcha Natus non factus and although before his time there were Monarchs of the Saxon Heptarchy yet not successive and fixed in a Family but the said King Egbert being the first that so obtained this Monarchy as to leave it by descent unto his Son the said Aethelwolph he thereby had the more indisputable power to oblige all the Kingdom unto an observance of the said Act. In the said Chapter of Tithes there is also mention made of Mortuaries as having some relation of Tithes wherein is shewed what it is when by and to whom and wherefore to be paid By the Stat. of 21 H. 8. they are reduced to another Regulation than what was in the time of King Henry the Sixth A Mortuary was then the Second best Beast whereof the party died possessed but in case he had but two in all then none due It was called a Corse-Present because ever paid by the Executors though not alwaies bequeathed by the dying party All persons possessed of an Estate Children under Tuition and Femes Covert but not Widows excepted were liable to the payment thereof to the Priest of that Parish where the dying party received the Sacrament not where he repaired to Prayers but in case his House at his death stood in two Parishes it was then divided betwixt them both And it was given in lieu of Personal Tithes which the party in his life time had through ignorance or negligence not fully paid Lindw Cons de Consuetud Such of the ancient Lawyers as were unacquainted with this word Mortuarium in the aforesaid sense as we now use it took Mortuarium only pro derelicto in morte say of it That it is Vocabulum novum harbarum but we understand it better where of Custome it is due and payable These Mortuaries where by the Custome they are to be paid were ever in consideration of the omission of Personal Tithes in the parties Life-time which Personal Tithes were by the Canon Law to be paid only of such as did receive the Sacraments and only to that Church where they did receive them as may be inferr'd plainly from cap. Ad Apostolicae de Decimis But observe says Lessius that in many places these Personal Tithes have been quite taken away and in some places they are paid only at the end of a mans Life as among the Venetians which manner of payment seems to have a great resemblance to these Mortuaries and in some places they are paid only ot the end of the year And in like manner many Predial and Mixt Tithes in divers places are also abolish'd which says he is for the most part done by the permission of the Church where men have been observed to pay them with regret and much against their minds nor hath the Church in such cases thought fit to compel them to it on purpose to avoid scandal Lessius de Just jur lib. 2. cap. 39. Dub. 5. nu 27. And in such places where the Custome is to pay a Personal Tithe when any persons shall Hunt Fish or Fowl to make gain or merchandize thereby and it be neglected to be paid whether Restitution or Compensation by way of a Mortuary where Mortuaries are Customable be in that case due by Law is a Question which by Covarruvies may be well held in the Affirmative Although the face of the Church as well as State began to look with a purer though less Sanguine complexion when Queen Elizabeth adorn'd the Crown than when her Sister wore it yet even in Queen Elizabeths time there crept such abuses into the Church that Archbishop Parker found it necessary to have recourse unto the Power given him by the Queens Commission and by a Clause of the Act of Parliament For the uniformity of Common Prayer and Service in the Church c. whereupon by the Queens consent and the Advice of some of the Bishops he sets forth a certain Book of Orders to be diligently observed and executed by all persons whom it might concern wherein it was Provided That no Parson Vicar or Curate of any Church Exempt should from thenceforth attempt to conjoyn by solemnization of Matrimony any not being of his or their Parish-Church without good Testimony of the Banns being ask'd in the several Churches where they dwell or otherwise were sufficiently Licensed Heyl. Hist of Q. Eliz. An. Reg. 3. Banns or Banna that word Bannum is sometimes taken pro Mandato scil Edicto it is a word of divers significations as appears almost by all the Glossographists and Feudists it sounds sometimes like Edictum sometimes like Mandatum or Decretum and sometimes as here like Proclamatio Saxonibus gebann whence there is their gebannian pro Proclamare edicere mandare ut nostratium Bannes pro Nuptiarum foedere Publicato This Publication of Banns was cautiously ordain'd for the prevention of Clandestine Marriages which were prohibited in this Kingdom above 500 years since as a thing contrary in all Ages to the practice of all Nations and Churches where the Gospel was received and therefore at a Council conven'd at Westminster in the year 1175. by Richard Archbishop of Canterbury under the Reign of King H. 2. it was Ordain'd That no person whatsoever should solemnize Marriage in
the hands of some viz. the Priors and afterwards Dr. Pope pulled off the Addition which he had made to the former Libel off from the second Libel And the whole Court said That if he proceeded upon that Addition that Sentence shall be given for Tithes upon any Prescription since the Statute that then they would grant a Prohibition Mich. 18. Jac. B. R. Dame Denton's Case and the Count of Clanrickard Roll. Rep. par 2. The Order of the Praemonstracenses were Discharged of all Tithes of their Land the which Manibus aut sumptibus excolebant propriis All the Chief Monks paid Tithe as well as other men till Pope Paschal at the Council of Mentz Ordained that they should not pay Tithes de Laboribus suis and that continued as a general Discharge till the time of H. 2. when Pope Adrian restrained it to three Orders viz. the Cistertians the Templers and the Hospitallers And the Discharge which the Order of the Praemonstracenses had was made by Pope Innocent the Third by his Bull. And after in the Council of Lateran ne Ecclesia nimium gravaretur it was provided That the Priviledge of the Templers should not extend to their Farmers Vid. Case Dickenson and Greenhall Mich. 22. Jac. B. R. Roll. Rep. 2. part In Hurrey's Case against Boyer in a Prohibition to the Ecclesiastical Court for stay of a Suit there for Tithes of Lands which were the possessions of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem upon Suggestion that the Prior of the said Dissolved House of St. Johns had this Priviledge from Rome which was by divers Councils and Canons viz. That the Lands of their Predecessors which by their own hands and costs they did Till they were not obliged to pay Tithes In this Case it was agreed That this Hospital was not Dissolved by the Statute of 31 H. 8. c. 18. of Dissolutions but by a Special Act made 32 H. 8. c. 24. by which their Corporation and Order was Dissolved and their Possessions given to the King with all the Priviledges and Immunities thereto belonging which the King granted to the Plaintiff in the Prohibition and whether he should hold them Discharged of the payment of Tithes was the question Harris Serjeant urged That this Immunity was annexed to the Corporation of the Prior and his Brethren of the said Hospital and doth not come to the King it being determined by the Dissolution of the said Hospital and so Adjudged in B. R. against the Book of 10 Eliz. Dyer 277. 60. 2. Coke the Bishop of Winchester's Case 14. B. and the Archbishop of Canterbury's Case 47. B. and 18 Eliz. Dyer 349. 16. Nichols Serjeant to the contrary and cited a Canon made by the Council of Mag. and another made by Innocent 3. An. 1215. and divers others and also the Statute of 2 H. 4. 4. and 7 H. 4. 6. and if Land be Discharged of payment of Tithes by Prescription of not Tithing and this Land come to the King the Priviledge remains and these Lands are given to the King in the same plight and case as they were in the Hospitallers and affirmed the Book of 10 Eliz. Dyer 277. 60. to be good Law and that the aforementioned Cases of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Winchester and the words of the Statute of 32 H. 8. 24. gives the King not only the Mannors Houses c. but also all Liberties Franchises Priviledges c. In this Case it was Confessed that it came by reason of the Order of the Cestertians as appears by the Canon And Hutton Serjeant arguing for the Defendant said that it appears by the Statute of 2 H. 4. 4. that it is Personal and that it differs from the Lands which came to the King by the Statute of 31 H. 8. For by that the King is Discharged of payment of Tithes and so are his Patentees but that this Priviledge is Personal and if so then it is determined by dissolution of the other and a personal Priviledge in case of Tithe is not transferred to the King Barker Serjeant for the Plaintiff in this case said That it was Ordained by Edgar King of this Realm that Tithes shall be given to the Mother-Church Also Edmund Ethelstone William the Conqueror and the Council of Magans specially provided that Tithes should be paid but did not appoint when they should be paid But the first Law which appointed the quantity was made in the time of Ed. 1. and this Ordained when they ought to pay the Tenth with the fear of God And before the Council of Lateran every one might pay his Tithes to what Parson he would and then were paid to Monasteries as Oblations If a Parson in one Parish claim Tithes in another as portion of Tithes due by Prescription to his Rectory he ought to shew the place especially viz. the place where the Tithes lie In the Seventeenth year of Ed. 2. the Order of the Templers was dissolved and their Possessions annexed to St. John of Jerusalem and they did not claim by any Bull of the Pope nor other Spiritual Canon but by Prescription which is Priviledge and private Common Law as appears by the Statute of Westm 2. cap. 74. And Menham's Canon in the time of Ed. 1. saith Let the Custome be observed And another Canon That Custome of not Tithing or of the manner of Tithing if they paid less than the Tenth part shall be observed Vid. Panormitan Cas Hurrey vers Boyer Brownl Rep. dict Cas Pasch 9 Jac. Rot. 1511. C. B. Brownl Rep. par 2. In the Bishop of Winchester's Case 38 Eliz. it was Resolved That at the Common Law none had capacity to take Tithes but Spiritual persons or Persona mixta as the King and regularly no meer Lay-man was capable of them except in special Cases for he could not Sue for them in the Court Christian and regularly a Lay-man had no remedy for them until the 32 H. 8. A Lay-man may be Discharged of Tithes at the Common Law by Grant or by Composition but not by Prescription for in the Books of the Common Law it is commonly said That a Law-man may Prescribe In Modo Decimandi but not In non Decimando And the reason is because he is not except in Special Cases capable of Tithes at the Common Law before the Statute of 32 H. 8. cap. 7. And therefore without Special matter shewed it shall not be intended that he hath any lawful Discharge and in favour of the Holy Church although it may have a lawful Commencement the Law will not suffer this Prescription In non Decimando to put it to the Trial of Lay-men A Spiritual person that was capable of Tithes at the Common Law in Pernancy may Prescribe to be Discharged of Tithes generally or to have a portion of Tithes in the Land of another Before the Council of Lateran every man might give his Tithes to any Spiritual person that he would and if the Lands of
c. according to the request of the Procurers of the same or signifie into Chancery by a day certain for what cause he refused to grant the same where if upon such Certificate it shall appear that the cause of such Refusal was reasonable just and good that then it shall be admitted and allowed otherwise there may issue thence by virtue of the said Statute a Writ of Injunction commanding the said Guardian of the Spiritualties so refusing as aforesaid to make sufficient grant of such License Dispensation c. by a certain day and if after the receipt of such Writ the Guardian of the Spiritualties shall yet refuse to grant the same and shew no just or reasonable cause for so doing that then and in such case the said Guardian of the Spiritualties shall incur such penalty to his Majesty as shall be limited and expressed in the said Writ of Injunction And moreover in such case a Commission under the Great Seal may issue to Two Spiritual Prelates or persons to be nominated by his Majesty Authorizing them to grant such Licenses Faculties and Dispensations as were so refused to be granted by the Guardian of the Spiritualties as aforesaid And what in this case is here enjoyn'd to the Guardian of the Spiritualties during the vacancy of the Archbishoprick is likewise expresly by the said Statute to the Archbishop himself in time of Plenarty or Non-vacancy of the See 4. Of the Metropolitan the Dean and Chapter is of Common right the Guardian of the Spiritualties Of Inferiour Bishopricks in times of Vacation the Dean and Chapter of the See is of Common right the Guardian of the Spiritualties and not the Metropolitan Yet 5 E. 2. Quare impedit 165. Admit that during the vacancy of the Bishoprick of Durham the Archbishop of York is Guardian of the Spiritualties And 23 E. 1. Rot. Claus Memb. 4. the Prior of Christ-Church in Canterbury was Guardian of the Spiritualties in time of vacation of the Archbishoprick Of which Archbishoprick the Dean and Chapter is Guardian of the Spiritualties in the time of vacancy Also of the Archbishoprick of York the Dean and Chapter is Guardian of the Spiritualties in the vacancy thereof and not the Archbishop of Canterbury for that it is a distinct Province not subordinate to c. contra 31 H. 6. 10. Admit for there a Parson of the Province of York had aid of the Metropolitan Guardian of the Spiritualties of the Archbishoprick of York in time of vacancy of that Archbishoprick In the Case of Grange against Denny it was said by Coke That of common Right by the Common Law the Dean and Chapter Sede vacante of the Bishop is Guardian of the Spiritualties as appears by Pasch 17 E. 3. fo 23. but that now the Archbishops have used to have this by way of Composition And in the same Case it was said by Doderidge That every Archbishop hath a Diocess and a Province and of his Diocess he is a Bishop and of his Province he is Archbishop and within his Province he is to be Visitor of all the Churches within his Province and Sede vacante of any Bishop within his Province he himself is Guardian of the Spiritualties of all the Bishopricks within his Province but Sede vacante of his own Diocess the Dean and Chapter of this is Guardian of the Spiritualties and that no mention is made in the Books of the Common Law of any such Composition aforesaid but that the Guardian of the Spiritualties is to be according to the difference before put between a Province and a Diocess 5. The Learned Serjeant Roll in his Abridgment doth acquaint us out of the Ancient Books That a Guardian of the Spiritualties may Admit and Institute a Clerk presented to him That the King did present to the Guardian of the Spiritualties of the Archbishoprick of Dublin Sede vacante for a Church in Ireland That the Guardian of the Spiritualties may try Bastardy That Letters were directed to all the Bishops and in the Vacancy to the Guardian of the Spiritualties to make Prayers for the King in his Journey in France And that the Prior of Christ-Church in Canterbury Guardian of the Spiritualties during the Vacancy of that Archbishoprick had a Felon delivered to him But in the time of the Vacancy of the Bishop the Archbishop is Guardian of the Spiritualties and not the Dean and Chapter CHAP. V. Of Congé d'Eslire Election and Confirmation 1. What Congé d'Eslire signifies the Original thereof 2. To whom it is directed and the manner of Proceedings thereupon and of Election 3. Confirmation of Bishops the form or manner thereof 4. Confirmation in a Temporal not Spiritual sense what 5. The Confirmation of Bishops Elect beyond Sea far different from this in England 6. The Law and Practice in France touching the making of Bishops 1. COngé d'Eslire in French Leave to Chuse is the Kings permission to a Dean and Chapter to chuse a Bishop in the time of Vacancy And time was when this Venia Eligendi was also the permission Royal to an Abby or Priory of his own Foundation to chuse their Abbot or Prior But we now understand it under no other signification than as his Majesties leave vouchsafed to a Dean and Chapter to elect a certain person to succeed as Bishop of that Diocess whose Episcopal See is vacant For the better interpretation of this Congé d'Eslire the Modern Pens refer themselves to Mr. Guin in the Preface to his Readings where he saith The the King of England as Sovereign Patron of all Archbishopricks Bishopricks and other Ecclesiastical Benefices had of Ancient time free Appointment of all Ecclesiastical Dignities whensoever they hapned to be void Investing them first Per Baculum Annulum and afterwards by his Letters Patents And that in process of time he made the Election over to others under certain Forms and Conditions viz. That they should at every Vacation before they chuse desire of the King Congé d'Eslire that is Leave or License to proceed to Election and then after the Election to crave the Royal Assent c. He affirmeth also by good proof out of the Books of the Common Law that King John was the first that granted this and that afterwards it was confirmed by Westminster 1. cap. 1. which Statute was made An. 3. Ed. 1. And again by the Statute Articuli Cleri cap. 2. which was Ordained An. 25. Ed. 3. Stat. 3. it is generally agreed That the Kings of this Realm were originally the Founders of all Archbishopricks and Bishopricks within this Kingdom being at first Donative per traditionem Baculi Pastoralis Annuli But afterwards King John by his Chapter 15 Jan. in the seventh year of his Reign De Communi consensu Baronum granted that they should ever after be eligible And from that time came in the Congé d'Eslire Vid. Co. 5. par 14. in Candry's Case vid. Stat.
And it was said That the Excommunication was only for his Contempt And it is lawful for the Bishop to grant such an Inhibition for the peace of the Church And Doderidge agreed That if the Bishop did Inhibit any from making a disturbance in the Church it was good and therefore would not grant a Prohibition for well-doing Crew Jones c. but here he had not done well Doderidge è contra Then it was said That here the Bishop had Inhibited till the matter were determined before himself And the whole Court agreed That a Seat in a Church claimed by Prescription and the priority therein likewise claimed by Prescription is Triable in this Court by an Action upon the Case and not in the Spiritual Court And at last it was agreed by the parties that H. should remain in possession till the matter were tried by Prohibition And a Prohibition was awarded in the Case Note That a Prohibition may not be granted after a Consultation And as it seems by the course of Proceedings in the Court of the King's Bench a Prohibition shall not be granted the last day of a Term and such a Motion ought not then to be made but upon a motion there may be a Rule to stay proceedings till the next Term 19. It was moved in the King's Bench for a Prohibition to the Ecclesiastical Court at Worcester and shewed for cause 1 That the Suit there was for Money which by the assent of the greater part of the Parishioners of D. was Assessed upon the Plaintiff for the Reparation viz. for the Re-casting of their Bells The truth is That the charge was for the making of new Bells where there were Four before whereby it appears that it is meerly matter of curiosity and not of necessity for which the Parishioners shall not be liable to such Taxations and herein it was relied upon 44 E. 3. 19. by Finchden 2 The party there is overcharged of which the Common Law shall judge 3 The party hath alledged that he and all those who have an Estate in such a Tenement have used to pay but Eleven shillings for any Reparation of the Church But the Prohibition was denied and by Doderidge in the Book of 44 E. 3. there was a By-law in the Case to distrain which is a thing meerly Temporal for which the Prohibition was granted per Curiam in this case the Assessment by the major part of the Parishioners binds the party albeit he assented not to it And the Court seemed to be of opinion That the Custome was not reasonable because it laid a burden upon the rest of the Parish Littleton of Counsel of the other side Suppose the Church falls shall he pay but Eleven shillings Whitlock If the Church falls the Parishioners are not bound to build it up again which was not denied by Justice Jones 20. Roberts and others of East-Greenwich were cited in the Ecclesiastical Court to pay money that the Church-wardens had expended in Reparation of the Church and the Inhabitants alledged That the Tax was made by the Church-wardens themselves without calling the Freeholders and also that the Moneys were expending in the Re-edifying Seats of the Churches which belonged to their several houses And they never assented that they should be pulled down And now the Allegation was not allowed in the Ecclesiastical Court but Sentence was given against them And then they Appealed to the Arches where this Allegation was also rejected and for that he prayed a Prohibition And the Court agreed That the Tax cannot be made by the Church-wardens but by the greater number of the Inhabitants it may and a Prohibition was granted But by Yelverton if they be cited by Ex Officio a Prohibition will not lie for so it was Ex insinuatione c. For the Wardens came and pray'd a Citation c. But by Richardson Harvey and Crook privately a Prohibition will lie in both Cases 21. E. Libels in the Ecclesiastical Court against A. pretending that a Seat that the other claimed alwaies in the Church belonged to his House and Sentence in that Court was given against E. and Costs pro falso clamore And he Appealed to the Arches and there when they were ready to affirm the Sentence he prayed a Prohibition And it was moved by Davenport that it might be granted and he cited one Tresham's Case 33 Eliz. where in such a case a Prohibition was granted after an Appeal Richardson There is no cause for any Prohibition but in respect of the costs Hutton said it was a double vexation and the party shall not have Costs for that Hitcham said they came too late to have a Prohibition for the Costs Richardson That is not like to the Probat of a Will where a thing may fall out Triable at the Common Law But there the Principal was tried at the Common Law for they had it as in right Hutton Seats in the generality are in the power of the Ordinary to dispose It is the Prescription which makes that triable at the Common Law and if Prescription be made there and it be found then he shall pay Costs Richardson All Disturbances appertain also to them if it be not upon the Statute of 5 Ed. 6. But if a Title be made there by Prescription it is meerly coram non Judice and if they cannot meddle with the Principal it is not reason that they should tax Costs And a Prohibition was granted 22. H. Farmer of a Mannor A. and other Church-wardens Libel against him in the Ecclesiastical Court for a Tax for the reparation of the Church Henden moved for a Prohibition because that first the Libel was upon a custome That the Lands should be charged for Reparations which Customes ought to be tried at the Common Law And secondly Because the custome of that place is that Houses and Arable Lands should only be taxed for the Reparations of the Church and Meadow and Pasture should be charged with other Taxes But the whole Court on the contrary First although that a Libel is by a Custome yet the other Lands shall be dischargeable by the Common Law but the usage is to alledge a Custome and also that Houses are chargeable to the Reparations of the Church as well as Land And thirdly that a custome to discharge some Lands is not good Wherefore a Prohibition was granted Note that where a man sued in the Ecclesiastical Court prescribing to have a Seat in a Church ratione Messuagii where he inhabited upon the motion of Serjeant Henden a Prohibition was granted for it is a Temporal thing Note By Coke Chief Justice That the keeping of a Church-Book for the age of those which should be born and christned in the Parish began in the 30th year of Henry the Eighth by the instigation of the Lord Cromwel A man was indicted upon the Statute of Ed. 6. That in the Church-yard such
certain day in the Vestry to Elect Churchwardens They elect A. and present him to the Archdeacon who refuses A. and forbids him to exercise the Office of a Churchwarden because the Parson pretended that by the new Canon the Election of a Churchwarden belonged to him to dispose c. and exercise the Office of Churchwarden And A. is sued ex Officio in the High Commission-Court amongst other things touching that A. prays a Prohibition because the Canon does not take away the Custome Also it would be very mischievous if the Parson should Elect whom he please to be Churchwarden And the Parson and Churchwardens being a Corporation then they may dispose of the Goods and Lands of the Parish as they please Coke Chief Justice said That a Convocation hath power to make Constitutions for Ecclesiastical Things or Persons 20 H. 6. 14. 21 E. 4. 46. But they ought to be according to the Law and Custome of the Realm And they cannot make Churchwardens that were Eligible to be Donative without Act of Parliament and the Canon is to be intended where the Parson had nomination of a Churchwarden before the making of the Canon And now Rule was given for a Prohibition if cause be not shewn to the contrary c. ex motione Serjeant Foster 6. As touching Sidemen otherwise called Questmen they are only such as are annually chosen according to the custome of every Parish to assist the Churchwardens in the enquiry and presenting such Offenders to the Ordinary as upon such Presentments are prosecuted and punishable in the Ecclesiastical Court 7. In an Action of Trespass against the Churchwardens where by the Statute of 43 Eliz. cap. 2. if for a Distress taken by them for money for the relief of the Poor Trespass be brought against them and Verdict pass for them the Defendants shall recover treble Dammages with their Costs And that to be assest c. by the same Jury or by Writ of enquiry of Dammages it was Resolved 1 That the Costs shall not be trebled but only the Dammages 2 That the treble Dammages are well assest by the Jury although that it be not done by the Court. Because the words are by the same Jury to be assest and not Dammages to be trebled by them 8. Upon an Habeas Corpus the Case was return'd to be That H. being Churchwarden refused to take the Oath of Enquiry of the 39 Articles touching Ecclesiastical matters And the warrant of the Commitment of the High Commissioners was to retain him and until we shall give order for his delivery By the Court c. Vntil we that is All we 12 Ed. 4. 3. a. 1 H. 7. 7. a. that is not good for if then any of them dies or be removed The party shall never be delivered by that means But it ought to be Until he shall be lawfully delivered But notwithstanding the Churchwarden was not out upon Bail because now also he refused to take that Oath But with a So far forth as the Articles do agree with the Law of God and the Land Note that such subscription or consent to the Articles 13 Eliz by a Parson is not good As it was Adjudged in 33 34 Eliz. B. R. Clark against Smithfield But afterwards the Church-warden was delivered by the High Commissioners 9. If the Parishioners have time out of mind used to chuse two Churchwardens yearly and to present them to the Archdeacon to be Sworn and he have used to Swear them and upon such election and presentation to him to be Sworn he shall refuse to Swear them a Writ may issue out of the King's Bench directed to the Archdeacon commanding him to Swear them Mich. 15 Jac. B. R. such Writ was granted for the Churchwardens of Sutton Valence in Kent for although there was a Canon made primo Jac. to the contrary yet that cannot take away the custome Tr. 15 Car. B. R. The like Writ was granted for the Churchwardens of the Parishes of Ethelborough and St. Thomas Apostles in London after divers motions and upon hearing of the Council on both sides Pasch 4 Car. B. R. Rot. 420. between Draper and Stone The like Writ was granted for the Churchwardens of Holberton in Devon If one be chosen Churchwarden and the Official of the Bishop refuse to Administer his Oath to him he shall have a Special Writ directed to the Official commanding him to give him his Oath Trin. 17 Jac. B. R. Bishop's Case Roll Rep. Note That an Attorney cannot be a Churchwarden if he be chosen and refuse and be sued for such a Refusal in the Ecclesiastical Court he may have a Prohibition Pasch 14 Car. 1. B. R. in Wilson's Case Trin. 15 Car. 1. B. R. Barker's Case Roll's Cases 2. par fo 272. 10. By the Injunctions of King Ed. 6. An. 1547. to all the Clergy as well as Laity of this Realm it is required That the Parson Vicar or Curate and Parishioners of every Parish within this Realm shall in their Churches and Chappels keep one Book or Register wherein they shall write the day and year of every Wedding Christning and Burial made within their Parish c. and therein shall write every persons Name that shall be so Wedded Christned or Buried And for the safe keeping the said Book the Parish shall be bound to provide of their common charges one sure Coffer with two Locks and Keys whereof the one to remain with the Parson Vicar or Curate and the other with the Wardens of every Parish-Church or Chappel wherein the said Book shall be laid up Which Book they shall every Sunday take forth and in the presence of the said Wardens or one of them write or record in the same all the Weddings Christnings and Burials made the whole week before and that done to lay up the Book in the said Coffer as before And for every time that the same shall be omitted the party that shall be in the fault thereof shall forfeit to the said Church three shillings four pence to be employed to the Poor mens Box of that Parish 11. A man taxed by the Parish for Reparation of the Church was sued for the Tax by the Churchwardens in the Ecclesiastical Court Depending this Suit one of the Churchwardens released to the Defendant all Actions Suits and Demands the other Church-warden proceeded in the prosecution of the Suit and upon this the Defendant procured a Prohibition upon which matter shewed therein was a Demurr joyned Davenport moved for a Consultation The Question was where two Churchwardens sue in the Ecclesiastical Court for a Tax and one of them Release whether that Release shall barr his Companion or not It seem'd to him that this Release shall not be any barr to his Companion or impediment to sue for he said That Churchwardens are not parties interessed in the Goods of the Church but are a special Corporation for the benefit of the Church for which he cited
may have a Writ of Right of Advowson but this Writ lieth not for him unless he claim to have the Advowson to him and his Heirs in Fee-simple which Advowson is valuable though the Presentment be not 18. The Queen seized of an Advowson being void the Ancestor of P. Presented and so gained it by Usurpation and then the Church being void he Presented again his Clerk dies and then the Queen grants the Advowson to Y. the Plaintiff who brings a Quare Impedit in the Queens Name supposing that this Usurpation did not put the Queen out of Possession It was argued That the Grant could not pass without special words because it is in the nature of a Chose in Action And Dyer Mead and Windham held That this Usurpation did gain possession out of the Queen and that she should be put to her Writ of Right of Advowson but the Opinion of Anderson Cheif Justice was clearly That the Queen was not out of Possession for he said That it was a Rule in our Books that of a thing which is of Inheritance the act of a Common person will not put the Queen out of possession But if she had only a Chattel as the next Advowson then perhaps it is otherwise But Mead and Windham very earnestly held the contrary relying on the Book of 18 E. 3. where Shard said That if the King had an Advowson in his own Right and a Stranger who had no Right happen to Present it puts the King out of Possession And the King shall be put to his Writ of Right as others shall The Defendant alledged Two Presentations in his Ancestor after the Title of the King and demanded Judgment if the King should have a Writ of Possession and the Plea was admitted to be good But after Pasch 25 Eliz. Judgment was given for the Queen for that she might very well maintain a Quare Impedit and the two Presentments did not put her out of possession 19. In a Quare Impedit by G. against the Bishop of L. and D. Incumbent The Case was That a Mannor with the Advowson Appendant was in the hands of the King and the Church became void and the King grants the Mannor with the Advowson If the Grantee shall have the Presentation or the King was the question All the Justices held clearly That the Avoidance would not pass because it was a Chattel vested And Periam said that in case of a Common person without question an Advowson appendant would not pass by such Grant for if the Father die it shall go to his Executor but if it be an Advowson in Gross in case of a Common person there is some doubt But in the Principal Case all the Judges held ut supra and said That so it was in 9 E. 3. 26. Quare Impedit 31. and in Dyer in the Case of the Church of Westminster But F. N. B. is contrary 33. N. 20. Of Advowsons there are three Original Writs whereof one is a Writ of Right the other two of Possession viz. Darrein Presentment and Quare Impedit And where an Advowson descendeth unto Parceners though one Present twice and usurpeth upon his Co-heir yet he that was negligent shall not be clearly barr'd but another time shall have his turn to Present when it falleth And by the Statute of 3 Jac. 5. every Recusant Convict is utterly disabled to Present to any Ecclesiastical Living or to Collate or Nominate to any Donative whatsoever the Advowson of every such Recusant being left to the disposition of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge Also by the Statute of 13 E. 1. 5. it is directed what Action shall be maintained by him in the Reversion who is disturbed to Present after the Expiration of a particular Estate where there is also provided a Remedy for him in the Reversion or Remainder or others that have right where there is an Usurpation of an Advowson during any particular Estate And that Judgments given in the Kings Courts touching Advowsons shall not be avoided by Surmizes but by lawful means Likewise it is Statute-Law to hold That Advowsons shall not pass from the King but by Special words for when the King doth give or grant Land or a Mannor with the Appurtenances unless he make express mention in his Deed of Advowsons of Churches when they fall belonging to such Mannor or Land they are reserved to him notwithstanding the word Appurtenances albeit among Common persons it hath been otherwise observed nor is it lawful to purchase an Advowson during the dependancy of a Suit at Law concerning the same 21. If a Feme Covert be seized of an Advowson and the Church becomes void and the Wife dieth the Husband shall Present Where Parson and Vicar be Endowed in one Church and the Vicarage becomes void the question is To whom the Advowson of the Vicarge doth belong and who in that case shall be said to be the Patron of the Vicarage Whether the Patron of the Parsonage or the Parson It seems the Books at Common Law the Judges and the Court were divided in Opinion touching this point some of the Judges were of Opinion That the Advowson of the Vicarage appertains to the Parson Others that it belongs to the Patron Such as inclined that it is in the Patron gave for reason That the Ordinary cannot make a Vicar without the assent of the Patron 5 E. 2. Quare Impedit 165. puts the Case That although the Vicarage be Endowed with the assent of the Patron and Ordinary yet the Advowson of the Vicarage doth remain in the Parson because the same is parcel of the Advowson of the Parsonage And 16. E. 3. Grants 56. it was a question Whether by the Grant of the Advowson of the Church the Advowson of the Vicarage did pass and there it was said by Stone That it doth pass as Incident to the Parsonage And in regard the Vicar is as the Parsons Substitute and his Endowment originally only as a Maintenance for him in officiating the Cure for the case of the Parson whose Concern it is to see that he be a fit and able person sufficient for the Cure it should thence seem rational that the Parson should be his Patron to Present such an one to the Vicarage as shall be sufficient for the Cure for which reasons the Patronage of the Vicarage should seem rather to belong unto the Parson than to the First Patron of the Parsonage Appropriate 22. An Advowson cannot it seems at the Common Law be called a Demesne for that it is not such a thing as a man hath a Manual occupation or possession of as he hath of Lands Tenements and Rents whereof he may say in his Pleading That he was seized thereof in his Demesn as of Fee which he cannot say that hath only the Advowson of a Church because it lies not as the other in Manual occupation And therefore in the case
his Presentation but he may cumulando variare and so the Ordinary hath Election to Institute which of them he will but that a Spiritual Patron cannot vary at all But he said that at the Common Law it is out of question That a Patron before Institution may revoke his Presentation And if the Patron present one and the Ordinary admit him but will not give him Institution Duplex Quaerela lies against the Ordinary to enforce him to do his duty But if both Parsons claim by one Patron and the one sues a Duplex Quaerela a Prohibition lies not before Institution But Jones denied it and said That it had been Resolved to the contrary Doderidge said That in that case the Induction was pendente Lite And in Calvert's Case against Kitchin it was said that they King may revoke his Presentation and by the same reason may Present another before his Presentee is Instituted for proof whereof it was said That a Common person may recall his Presentation before the Institution c. for which was vouched the Book of 31 E. 1. tit Quare Impedit 185. the Abbot of Leicesters Case although that Dyer citing it 12 Eliz. fo 292. conceives the Book contrary but it seems to be in reason that the Law is clear That a Lay-Patron may change although that a Spiritual Patron cannot and the reason is as aforesaid because a Lay-person did not know his Sufficiency perhaps at the first but a Spiritual person by intendment may inform himself thereof well enough and therefore was vouched 18 H. 7. and 1 H. 8. Kellway's Reports which plainly proves that diversity And by the 19 Eliz. fo 360. in Coleshil's Case it is said That when the King hath Presented a Repeal by him ought not to be admitted after Institution And by Dyer 339. in Yatton's Case the King may Repeal his Presentation by a new Presentation without mention made of the former except that the Second Presentation be obtained by Fraud Also the King may Present by Paroll as was said by Sir Ed. Coke in the Lord Windsors Case and as appears by 17 Eliz. Dyer as was vouched by Bromley Baron in the foresaid Case of Calvert against Kitchin where it was said by Altham Baron That by the Kings death his Presentation determines understand it before Institution and so it is said in 34 E. 3. 8. tit Quare Impedit 11. That a Presentment made by a Bishop becomes null and void by his death And in 38 Ed. 3. 3. if a Bishop Present and die before c. the King shall Present anew 11. Nomination is a power that by virtue of a Mannor or otherwise a man hath to Nominate or Appoint a Clerk to a Patron of a Benefice by him to be Presented to the Ordinary for the same where Note 1 That it may be in right of a Mannor or otherwise 2 That the Clerk Nominated ought to be a person fit able and worthy 3 That it may be to a Parsonage Vicarage or other Spiritual promotion 4 That it ought to be to another than the Ordinary which other shall present him to the Ordinary And if one hath a Right to have the Nomination of a Clerk to a Benefice and another Disturbs him he cannot have a Quare Impedit ipsum Nominare ad Ecclesiam but the Writ shall be Quod permittat ipsum Praesentare And the Count shall be That of Right he ought to Name a Clerk to such as one who ought to Present him to the Bishop and that a Stranger doth disturb him of his Nomination and in case he doth Recover the Judgment shall be Quod Episcopus admittat Clericum ad Nominationem suam 12. If A. B. doth Grant unto J. S. That he shall Name a Clerk to him to the Church of C. when it shall become void and that A. B. shall present unto the Bishop the Clerk which J. S. shall Nominate to him in that case the Presentation is in J. S. and he shall have a Quare Impedit for all the Profit is in him and the Grant of the Nomination and Presentation is all one But if A. B. doth Grant unto J. S. That he shall Nominate to him Two Clerks whereof A. B. shall Present one in that case the Presentation is not given to J. S. the Grantee because it is in the Election of A. B. which of the Two shall have the Benefice And this was the Opinion of the Justices in Smith and Clayton's Case 13. If A. hath the Nomination to an Advowson and B. the Presentation if A. Nominates C. for his Clerk and B. that should present C. doth present D. for the Clerk A. that hath the Nomination shall have a Quare Impedit and the Writ shall be Quod permittat eum Praesentare albeit A. had but the Nomination otherwise he should be without remedy for in such cases where the party can otherwise have no Right done him the Law will admit such Writ albeit the words therein be improper And if he who had but a Nomination corruptly agree to make a Presentation or Nomination this Nomination shall be forfeited to the King within the Statute of 31 Eliz. cap. 6. as was said in Calvert's Case against Kitchin and Parkinson and as it is said in Plowden in Hare and Bickley's Case He who hath the Nomination hath the effect of the Advowson Yet as in the said Case of Calvert this diversity seems to be good That if A. hath the Presentation and B. the Nomination to a Benefice and the Presentor upon a Corrupt agreement make a Presentation unknown to the Nominator here the Nominator shall not be prejudiced within the Statute of 31 Eliz. cap. 6. 14. In Green's Case vouched by Atthowe Serjeant in the Case of the King against the Archbishop of Canterbury and one Thomas Prust upon a Quare Impedit brought by the King it is said That if the Bishop Collate before the Six months incurr the Collatee is Incumbent but the Patron may Present at any time aster for that fills the Church but not against the Patron and hinders that no Lapse may incurr to another In Sir Hen. Gawdy's Case for the Church of W. the Church there became void and within fourteen daies after the King Presented one to it jure Prerogativae the Presentee continues possession above thirty years and then the Mannor and the Advowson came to Sir Henry Gawdy the Church is void and the King Presents again and was disturbed by Sir Henry For that the King brought a Quare Impedit and Adjudged That the Presentation of the King within the Six months was not an Usurpation But if he had Presented in his own right there should have been an Usurpation When a Title by Lapse is in the King if any Present the King may remove him during his life by Quare Impedit All this appears by Baskervil's Case but if the Incumbent die the term of the King is gone and if
Law which will not be good if the Institution were not good All which was also the Opinion of the Court in the Case aforesaid for if the Question be whether Parson or no Parson which comprehends Induction it is Triable at the Common Law And although by the Institution the Church if Full against all persons save the King yet he is not compleat Parson till Induction for though he be admitted ad Officium by the Institution yet he is not entitled ad Beneficium till Induction 18. In an Ejectione Firmae brought by the Lessee of Rone Incumbent of the Church of D. it was found by Special Verdict that the King was the true Patron and that Wingfield entered a Coveat in vita Incumbentis he then lying in Extremis scil Caveat Episcopus nè quis admittatur c. nisi Convocatus the said Wingfield the Incumbent dies Naunton a Stranger Presents one Morgan who is Admitted and Instituted afterwards the said Wingfield Presents one Glover who is Instituted and Inducted and afterwards the said Rone procures a Presentation from the King who was Instituted and Inducted And then it came in◠question in the Ecclesiastical Court who had the best Right and there Sentence was given That the First Institution was Irrita Vacua Inanis by reason of the Caveat and then the Church being Full of the Second Incumbent the King was put out of possession and so his Presentation void But it was Adjudged and Resolved by all the Court for Rone For 1 it was Resolved That this Caveat was void because it was in the life of the Incumbent According to the Common Law if a Caveat be entered with the Bishop and he grant Institution afterwards yet it is not void After a Caveat entered Institution is not void by the Common Law Pasch 13 Jac. B. R. Hitching vers Glover Rol. Rep. Cro. par 2. 2. The Church upon the Institution of Morgan was Full against all but the King and so Agreed many times in the Books and then the Presentation of Glover was void by reason of the Super-institution and therefore no obstacle in the way to hinder the Presentation of Rone and therefore Rone had good Right And if the Second Institution be void the Sentence cannot make it good for the Ecclesiastical Court ought to take notice of the Common Law which saith That Ecclesia est plena consulta upon the Institution and the person hath thereby Curam animarum And as Doderidge Justice said He hath by it Officium but Beneficium comes by the Induction And although by the Ecclesiastical Law the Institution may be disannull'd by Sentence yet as Lindwood saith Aliter est in Angl. And Doderidge put a Case out of Dr. Student lib. 2. If a man Devise a Sum of Money to be paid to J. S. when he comes to Full age and he after sue for it in the Spiritual Court they ought to take notice of the Time of Full age as it is used by the Common Law viz. 21. and not of the time of Full age as it is in the Civil Law viz. 25. So in this case for when these Two Laws meet together the Common Law ought to be preferred And when the Parson hath Institution the Archdeacon ought to give him Induction Vid. Dyer 293. Bedingfield's Case cited by Haughton to accord with this Case 19. By the Court That if an Archdeacon make a general Mandate for the Induction of a Parson viz. Vnivers personis Vicariis Clericis Literatis infra Archidiaconat meum ubicunque Constitut That if a Minister or a Preacher who is not resident within the Archdeaconry makes the Induction yet it is good And the Opinion of four Doctors of the Civil Law was shewn in the Court accordingly upon a Special Verdict 21. In the Case of Strange against Foote the sole Point upon the Special Verdict was If one Prideoux being Admitted and Instituted to a Prebendary with the Cure 4 Eliz. be being but Nine years of age notwithstanding the Statute it is meerly void Note 4 H. 6. 3. That if a Feme who is an Infant under 14 years hath issue it is a Bastard 21. It is said at the Common Law that after Induction the Admission and Institution ought not to be drawn into question in the Ecclesiastical Court for they say That after Induction the Ecclesiastical Law may not call into question the Institution That by Institution the Church is full against Common persons but not against the King and that by Induction the King may be put out of possession And in the Case between Rowrth and the Bishop of Chester it was Resolved That after an Induction an Institution is not to be examined in the Ecclesiastical Court but by a Quare Impedit only But yet the Justices if they see cause may write to the Bishop to Certifie concerning the Institution 22. Two Patrons pretended Title to Present the one Presented and the Bishop refused his Clerk He sued in the Audience and had an Inhibition to the Bishop and after he there obtained Institution and Induction by the Archbishop Afterwards the Inferior Bishop Instituted and Inducted the Clerk of the other for which Process issued out of the Audience against him he upon that prayed a Prohibition and a Prohibition was awarded as to the Incumbency because the Ecclesiastical Courts have not to meddle with Institution and Induction as was there said for that would determine the Incumbency which is triable at Common Law 23. In a Prohibition prayed to the Ecclesiastical Court the Case appeared to be this viz. Holt was Presented Instituted and Inducted to the Parish-Church of Storinton afterwards Dr. Wickham draws him into the Ecclesiastical Court questioning of him for some matters as touching the validity of his Induction and upon this a Prohibition was by him prayed Williams Justice A Prohibition here in this Case ought to be granted this being directly within the Statute 45 Ed. 3. cap. 3. for here the very Title of the Patronage comes in question with the determination of which they ought not to intermeddle also matter of Induction and the validity thereof is determinable at the Common Law and not in the Ecclesiastical Court and therefore a Prohibition ought to be granted and the whole Court agreed with him herein and therefore by the Rule of the Court a Prohibition in this Case was granted CHAP. XXV Of Avoidance and Next Avoidance as also of Cession 1. What Avoidance is how Twofold 2. The difference in Law between Avoidance and next Avoidance 3. How many waies Avoidanee may happen what Next Avoidance is The word Avoidance falls under a double Acceptation in Law 4. The Next Avoidance may not be granted by a Letter it cannot be granted but by Deed. 5. Grant of a Next Avoidance by the Son Living the Father Tenant in Tail is void 6. How Avoidance may be according to the Canon Law which
and use thereof when Erected how Established and by whom Dissolved 1. ABba and Abbas have one and the same signification therefore Abbots are called Patres c. ult de Regular Tuseh Concl. 3. nu 7. It is either an Hebrew or Syriack word signifying Pater with the Greeks and Latins from the two first Hebrew Elements or Letters Aleph and Beth inverted which Name the Monks first assumed at their Original in Syria and Egypt And although now in this Kingdom we know no more of this word Abbot than the very Name thereof yet for his Antiquities sake he hath the Alphabetical precedence in the Index of this Abridgment whether he be Archimandrita Novel Const 115. or Coenobiarcha or Archimonachus Hottom in ver Feuda Marsil colum de Eccles redit c. 15. nu 5 6. whether Miter'd and thereby exempt from the Diocesan's Jurisdiction as having within their own Precincts Episcopal Authority in themselves and being Lords in Parliament whence called Abbots Sovereign 9 R. 2. c. 4. Or not Miter'd but subject to the Diocesan in all Spiritual Government c. Monasteria 18. q. 2. c. Abbas c. Visitandi cum 4. seq ibid. Omnes 16. q. 7. c. cum Venerabilis Extra de Relig. Dom. vid. Stow. Ann. p. 442. So called Abbas because he is Pater Monachorum Januen in suo Cathol glo Jo. Andr. de Rescript c. 1. verb. Abbates in Clem Coke de Jure Ecclesiast fo 28. and hath the chief government of a Religious House and who with the Monks makes a Covent of these Abbots together with two or three Priors there were heretofore in England about the number of Thirty in all What Consecration is to a Bishop that Benediction is to an Abbot but in divers respects for a Bishop is not properly such until Consecration but an Abbot being Elected and Confirmed is properly such before Benediction cap. de Suppl negl Prael lib. 1. 10. Clem. § Statuimus de Stat. Monach. in Clem. cap. Meminimus de Accusat 2. The Venerable Mr. Bede speaks of an Island in Ireland which ever had an Abbot vested with such power and authority that every Province yea and the Bishops themselves were under his Government and subject to his Jurisdiction Beda lib. 3. de Gestis cap. 3. Spelm. de Prim. Eccles Angl-Sax An. 603. The Emperour Justinian in the First Book of his Codes hath expresly ordained and prescribed the manner and form of the Election and Confirmation of an Abbot and what persons they ought to be and how qualified that shall be accounted worthy of that Ecclesiastical Dignity C. l. 1. tit 3. l. 47. l. 40. De Episc Cler. Novel 5. cap. 9. Novel 123. c. 34. Mr. Blount in his Nomo-Lexicon takes notice of the word Abbacy and saies it is the same to an Abbot as Bishoprick is a Bishop resembling it to the word Paternity and a very Ancient Record wherein that word is used An. 34 35 H. 8. c. 17 18. Sciant .... quod Ego Isabella Comitiss Penb. pro Salute Animae meae Dedi Deo Abbathiae de Nutteleg totam Wicham juxta dictam Abbathiam c. In these latter Ages the Abbots through the savour of Princes and their respect to the Church have been reputed as Peers and Secular Lords to whom the granted the Provenues of Abbacies proportionable to such Dignity for the support thereof Thus many of the Peers of France have very anciently and frequently been Abbots as appears by Paradine who wrote the Annals of Burgundy nigh Seven hundred years since and then affirmed that he had seen very Ancient Records wherein the Peers of France used these styles and distinctions viz. Duke and Abbot Earl and Abbot c. Guil. Paradin Annal. Burgund lib. 2. sub An. 1103. Prat. 3. Notwithstanding the ill opinion which in these daies not without cause is conceived of the Ancient Abbies yet it cannot without some breach of charity be well supposed but that such Houses commonly called Religious were in the primitive and true intent thereof better purposed by the Founders than after practised by their Inhabitants for by the Law made in the daies of K. Knute nu 6. i is evident what strict Devotion and blameless Conversation the Ancient Princes of this Realm expected from such as then possessed these Abbies The Law was this viz. We will that Gods Ministers the Bishops Abbots c. do in a special manner take a right course and live according to Rule that they call to Christ night and day much and oft and that they do it earnestly And we Command them that they hearken to God and love Chastity Full truly they wit that it is against the Right to meddle with Women for Lusts sake Annot. Ridl View c. cap. 4. Sect. 1. Whereby it seems these Spiritual Fathers were suspected of old to incline to the Flesh all daies of the week An Abbot might be Presented to a Church for he was capable of an Appropriation whereby he was perpetual Parson Imparsonee and had Curam Animarum 34 H. 6. 15. 4. The Abbot or the chief Head of Abbies being together with the Monks of the same House a Covent made a Corporation and was not by the Common Law further charged with his Predecessors Acts than for such things as were for the use of the House or such Acts as were done under the Common-Seal thereof And albeit a Creditor had a Specialty against a Monk yet not the Abbot but the Monk's Executors were chargeable for his Debt contracted before his entry into Religion unless it were for some such thing as came to the use of his House 5. Of these Abbots some were Elective others Presentative and under this Title were comprehended other Corporations Spiritual as Prior and his Covent Friers Canons and such like And as there were Lord-Abbots so there were also Lord-Priors who had exempt Jurisdiction and were Lords of Parliament Co. de Jur. Ecclesiast fo 28. a. It is supposed that the Abbot of St. Austins in Canterbury was the Ancientest of any in this Kigdom Founded by King Ethelbert in An. 602. And next to him in Antiquity the Abbot of Westminster Founded by Seabert King of the West-Saxons An. 604. Some difference there is among Authors touching their Number in this Realm whereof some reckon but Twenty six Sir Edw. Coke says they were Twenty seven Abbots and Two Priors But a very Modern Writer gives us a Catalogue of no less than Thirty three Abbots and Priors whereof some were Priors Alieâ—s born in France Governours of Religious Houses erected for Foreigners here in England suppressed by Henry the Fifth after his Conquests in France and their Revenues after given by Henry the Sixth to other Monasteries and Houses of Learning specially for the crecting of Kings Colledge in Cambridge and Eaton Stow Annals p. 582. 1 H. 5. c. 7. 6. Chaunter Cantator A Singer in the Quire At St. Davids
Holy Scriptures is meant as is generally held the Kinsmen of the Lord according to the Flesh Antrinitarians were those Hereticks who denied the Blessed Trinity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these were a Branch from the Root of Eutyches They supposed that the Flesh of Christ was void of all kind of Humane Infirmity The Emperor Justinian was said to be tainted with this Heresie in his old age by bearing so much with the Emperess Theodora to the great Advance of Eutyches his Error Apelles a Disciple of Marcion yet could not agree with his Master in all things for he agreed that Christ had a true Body but not made of the Substance of the Virgin Mary but of the four Elements and that after his Resurrection he dissolved into the four Elements and then return'd to Heaven from whence he came Epiphan Apollinaris Bishop of Laodicea in Syria so Ruffin l. 2. c. 20. yet it is said of him that missing of a Bishoprick he fell into these Heresies viz. That Christ had not Humane Flesh from the Virgin but from Heaven That he had a Humane body but not a Soul Confounding the Persons in the Trinity That Christ had no Humane Will That Souls begat Soules That after the Resurrection all the Ceremonies of the Law should take place among the Godly Apostolici these Hereticks condemned Marriage and held the Apostles to be all unmarried They made all things to be common They used Apochryphal Bookes for Gospel They refused to receive those into the Church who had lapsed after Baptism They would not have Possessions but rejoyced in voluntary Poverty and gave Sentence against themselves that they were unclean because they were procreated by Marriage Aquarii these were certain Hereticks who instead of Wine received Water in the Holy Sacrament This was in the days of Cyprian Arius a Lybian and a Priest or Presbyter of Alexandria he said that Christ was neither God nor Eternal but an excellent Creature created before all Creatures That he assumed only a Body but not the Soul of a man That the Holy Ghost was a Creature of a Creature viz. of the Son He Rebaptized and perverted the order of Baptism He used the Trisagion thus Gloria Patri per Filium in Spiritu Sancto He denied the Son of God to be begotten of the Substance of the Father but that he was a Creature and made of things not existent and that there was a time wherein the Son was not He was condemned in the Nicene Council and banish'd by the Emperour Constatine Armenii so called of the Province where their Heresies raged by the means of Euchanius called Mantacunes They denied that Christ assumed his Humanity from the Virgin Mary They celebrated the Passover after the Custome of the Jews They held a Quaternity and that the Divinty suffered Artemon Bishop of Bostra in Arabia denied the Divinity of Christ and affirmed that he was not existent before he took Flesh from the Virgin This was in the third Century Artotyritae they were of the Sect of the Pepusians and added Cheese to the Bread in the Sacrament Assitae these were Hereticks who carried about with them new vessels to represent that they were vessels filled with the new Wine of the Gospel Badesianistae these were but a Branch of the Heresie of the Valentinians and Gnosticks who denied the Resurrection these Hereticks were in the third Century Basilides an Egyptian of Alexandria he held fond Opinions concerning the Creation and number of Heavens that not Christ but Simon of Cyrene was Crucified That it was lawful to deny Christ in time of persecution and to have Idols that no Sins but such as are unwittingly committed should be pardoned That Faith was natural That Prophesies came not from God but Angels And that there was no Resurrection Beryllus Bishop of Bostra he was orthodox at the first but afterwards held that the Soul died with the Body and both rose again together That Christ was not before his Nativity Origen reclaimed him These Heresies were condemned in the Arabian Council An. 249. Caini so called of the special worship they attributed to Cain The reverenced Esau Core the Sodomites yea and Judas himself as Authors of mans Salvation They denied the Resurrection of the Body rejected the Law and worshipped evil Angels Tertullian and Epiphanius say that these Hereticks arose from the Nicholaitans but Ireneus says they sprung out of the Valentinians Carpocrates of Alexandria in Egypt he held that Christ was meer man and born of Joseph and Mary he held also the transmigration of Souls also that the Devil created the World and denied the Resurrection These damnable Heresies did spread in Egypt Asia and Rome under the name of Gnosticks he lived incontinently with Marcellina one of his own Sect his Son Epiphanes succeeded him in this diabolical Heresie and after him Prodicus the Author of the Adamites The followers of Carpecrates had in secret places Images of Gold and Silver which they called the Images of Jesus and therewithall the Images of Pythagoras Plato and Aristotle all which they worshipped So that the worshipping of Images and the adoration of the Image of Jesus seems to be a Custome borrowed rather from the old Hereticks than from the ancient Fathers of the first Three hundred years Epiph. contra Haeres Cathari they professed themselves purer than others and held Rebaptizing those who sinned after Baptism condemned second Marriage and refused to receive those who had lapsed in time of persecution The founder of these Cathari was Novatus ordained Priest of Rome by Cornelius upon his repulse in a Bishoprick Cerdon of Syria from whence he went to Rome and in the time of Higinus broached these blasphemous heresies viz. That there were two Gods one good who was the Father of Christ and another severe and bad and this Created the World This Cerdon as also Marcion were the Authors of the Opinion of two Gods or two Beginnings he denied the Resurrection of the Body and invented a new Baptism after a man hath been Baptized a second and third time he held that Christ was neither born of the Virgin Mary or suffered really with many other Blasphemies against him he rejected the Law and often seigned to recant but in the end was Excommunicated having lived in Rome Eight and thirty years Cerinthus a circumcised Jew contemporary with Ebion he affirmed that the World was not Created by God but by an inferiour power That Christ was born after the manner of men of Joseph and Mary denying her Virginity he divided Jesus from Christ saying that Christ descended upon Jesus at his Baptism in the form of a Dove That Jesus not Christ suffered and rose again That there was a necessity of Circumcision and that Life Eternal should be at Hierusalem where all Earthly pleasures should endure One thousand years The report is that St. John finding him in a Bath departed thence saying that it