he may Lawfully Marry some other Woman and some other Man Marry that Divorced Adulterers Wife In Mat. 19. 9. The words are That whosoever shall put away his Wife save for fornication and shall Marry another committeth Adultery and he that shall Marry her that is put away committeth Adultery Which words says that learned Author in Sect. 22. are favourable to the affirmative that it is Lawful for him in that one excepted Case to Marry again The nature of a Divorce among the Jews was the rescinding of the Conjugal Bands and by one supposition common to Jews and Romans viz. That they who were duly Divorced might Marry again So of the Jewish Divorced Wife Deut. 24. 2. 't is expresly said she may Marry another and of the Man this was his only End of putting away his Wife in that place that he might Marry another Accordingly the Form of Divorce in Misna tit Gittin Behold thou art free or at liberty for any Man and this is the Bill of Divorce between me and thee so that it is free for thee to Marry to any Man thou wilt Idem Sect. 27. yet on the other side says that learned Author it may be argued that although in the Mosaical Law Divorce was the rescinding the Conjugal Bands to which it was consequent as long as the Jewish polity lasted that they who were duly Divorced as in the one Case of Fornication might freely Marry again yet in the acceptation of our Christian Courts Divorce appears not to be any more than the solemn Judicial separation from Conjugal Society as that it seems to be rather the freeing the Husband and Wife from the Obligation to mutual conjugal duties than the utter rescinding and dissolving the Bands For if it were so then that Husband and Wife could never come together again without a new Wedlock which was never heard of in the Church that Adultery the efficient cause of Divorce though a breach of the Conjugal Vow is yet no actual dissâ—lution of the Conjugal Bands among us Christians seems probable says Doctor Hammond by these two evidences 1. Because Adultery committed by the Husband dissolves not Marriage which yet it equally should if that fault committed and not the Sentence of Divorce rescinded the Conjugal Band c. In this a difference is observable between us and the Jews for in case of Fornication the Jew expected no Sentence of the Consistory but the Man might put her away give her from himself a Bill of Divorce which was never allowed or practised among Christians 2. Because if this were so if Adultery in the Wife dissolved the bands then the Husband that after the Wifes Adultery continued to live with her Conjugally must be concluded to commit Fornication with her the validity of the bands being it and nothing else which makes Conjugal Society Lawful Accordingly hath the Opinion of the Church been anciently as in Can. Apost 48. If any Laick put away his Wife and Marry another or Marry a Woman which hath been put away by another let him be Excommunicate So likewise at the Council of Arles An. 314. Can. 10. De his qui Conjuges suas in adulterio deprehendunt iidem sunt Adolescentes Fideles prohibentur nubere placuit ut in quantum possit concilium iis detur nè viventibus uxoribus suis licet Adulteris alias accipiant Likewise in the Milevitan Council An. 402. at which St. Augustine was present it is decreed that secundum Evangelicam Apostolicam Doctrinam neque Dimissus ab uxore neq Dimissa à Marito alteri conjungantur sed ita maneant aut sibimet reconcilientur So also in the Codex Can. Eccl. African Can. 102. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That they that are Divorced from Husbands or Wives should remain unmarried And what hath thus been defined by these Canons is evidently received into the Ecclesiastical constitutions of this Church which therefore hath decreed that when Divorces are pronounced Monitio prohibitio fiat ut à partibus ab invicem segregatis caste vivatur nec ad alias Nuptias alterutra vivente convoletur Constit Eccl. An. 1597. upon these Arguments pro con Doctor Hammond in the forecited place doth conceive that the Resolution may be made by these three propositions 1. That by the force of Christs words in all the Evangelists he that Marries again after any kind of Divorce but that one for Fornication doth commit an Vnchristian sin 2. That by force of the Arguments first produced for the interpreting Mark and Luke by Mat. 19. 5. vid. Doctor Hammond of Divorces fol. 452 453. it may be probably concluded that in that one case of Divorce for Fornication the Marriage of the Innocent party shall not be Adulterous 3. That although this be granted yet the words of St. Mark and Luke especially the words of St. Paul 1 Cor. 7. 39. do give such prejudices against Marriages after Divorce indefinitely that the ancient Canons of the Church and the Constitutions of our English reformation have thought fit not to permit such liberty in any kind and therefore that this may be the better observed the decree of separation shall not be pronounced till they that demand it shall give sufficient security that they will do nothing against the Admonition and Prohibition for our Constitution adds Denique quo illud firmius observetur sententia separationis non antea pronunciabitur quam qui eam postulaverint Cautionem Fidejussoriam sufficientem interposuerint se contra monitionem prohibitionem nihil commissuros which if not observed by the Judge he is punishable and the Sentence of Divorce for such defect declared void Constit Eccl. an 1597. Innocent the first Bishop of Rome saith Qui interveniente repudio alii se Matrimonio copularunt in utraque parte Adulteros esse manifestum est c. But the said Judicious Author conceives that of this and the like Testimonies it may be observed that most of them belong not to these Divorces which are in case of Fornication but proportionably to Christ's words in St. Mark to those which according to the Jewish or Imperial Laws were allowed in other Cases than what either Christ or the Primogenial institution of Marriage had allowed of And further saith that it is evident and confessed by all Christians that of These that is the Marriages after such Divorces by the Jewish and Imperial Laws are Adulterous but not so of those other Marriages of the innocent parties after those other Divorces in that one Case of Adultery Yea and some Canons have been made with this Temperament expresly except in the case of Fornication so in the second Canon of the Council of Vannes eos qui relictis uxorihus suis sicut in Evangelio dicitur excepta causa Fornicationis sine Adulterii probatione alias duxerint statuimus c. They that have left their own Wives as it is said in the Gospel except for cause of Fornication and
without proof of Adultery shall have Married others we judge them c. Notwithstanding which the Law tells us of other Cases than that of Adultery or Fornication wherein the Man after a Divorce may re-marry during the Life of the Woman Divorced as in the Case of Arctitude which you may find in Summa Astensi Lib. 8. De Divortio propter impotentiam Tit. 37. fo 233. Si Arctatio alligetur subaudi quamcunque impotentiam Foeminae statim potest Divortium Fieri hoc modo viz. vocabuntur Matronae fide dignae in Nuptiali opere expertae Ar. F. de Ventr inspect l. 1. verb. igitur c. Et si Mulieres asserant eam non posse fieri Naturaliter Matrem tunc statim potest Divortium fieri et dabitur viro Licentia cum alia contrahendi It will not be denied but that in all Cases where the Marriage was ab initio Null there it shall after a legal Divorce be free for either party convolare ad secundas Nuptias altera parte existente which strictly and properly cannot be said to be a second Marriage because precedent to it there was duly and legally none nor therefore can they be properly said to be Divorced Separated or put asunder that never were de jure put together Among the several kinds of these Null Marriages may be computed that which Panormitan speaks of in his Fourth Tract de Sacramentis Resol 201. Foemina says he there si commode non potest aptam se reddere viro impedimentum censendum esse perpetuum Matrimonium declarandum Nullum which holds true vice versa and therefore it is likewise said that Foemina per contractum Matrimonii jus suum tradit viro apto non inepto atque in non aptum nullum transfertur jus The Canon Law is express in prohibiting these second Marriages after a Divorce although Ex causa Fornicationis So Tostatus verb. Matrimonium ubi voluit nullam esse Causam Repudii nisi Fornicationem Et istam non quidem simpliciter ad Dirimendum Matrimonium sed ad tollendam Cohabitationem ut patet Extra de Divort. c. Gaudemus The Lawyers and Divines says Adam Tannerus are of different opinions in this point Juristae Divortii voce utuntur pro Dissolutione Matrimonii etiam quoad vinculum ut constat ex toto tit F. De Divortiis Theologi tamen ea voce Divortii solam significant separationem inter conjugeâ— aut quoad Cohabitationem aut quoad Thorum Adam Tannerus Tom. 4. Disput 8. de Matrimonio q. 5. Dub. 5. nu 74. de Divortio 4. In concilio Arelatensi which was held in An. 314. at the command of Constantine the Great under Pope Silvester in the first Year of his Papacy it was Canoned Vt is cujus uxor adulteravit aliam illa vivente non accipiat Sir Hen. Spelman gives the words of this Canon thus viz. De his qui Conjuges suas in Adulterio deprehendunt iidem sunt Adolescontes Fidâ—â—es prohibentur Nubere placuit ut in quantum possit Consilium iis detur nè viventibus uxoribus suis licet Adulteris alias accipiant If this Canon be not directly prohibitory and against second Marriage after Divorce in Case of Adultery during the Life of the other Party yet it provides that Counsel or Advice in the Case be given against it and the Parties monished to the contrary 5. Mr. Atturney Noy in Dame Powels Case reports that a Divorce causa Adulterii is but à mensa thoro non a vinculo Matrimonii and the reason he gives is this viz. Because says he the offence is after the just and lawful Marriage if for this Opinion of his any Anticanonist should dream that he died in the Catholick Faith of Matrimonial Sacraments let him consult Sir Edward Coke in the Third part of his Institutes where he doth not only allow of that Member of the foresaid distinction but withall says that in the Case of Divorce à Mensa Thoro the second Marriage is void living the former Wife or Husband Yet in Bury's Case he reports it to have been adjudged that by a Divorce the Marriage is dissolved à vinculo Matrimonii and also resolved that admitting a second Marriage to be voidable yet it is adjudged that the same doth remain in force until it be dissolved and that the Issue born during such second Coverture is a lawful Issue to inherit the Land 6. Touching the kinds and effects of Divorce whether Divorce à vinculo Matrimonii or separation only à Mensa Thori with the causes thereof the Divines and Lawyers are of different Opinions and each of these divided among themselves some conceive that as there be Divorces Ex Causa praecedente so there are some Ex Causa subsequente as Causa Adulterii and that Adultery dissolves the very Bond of Matrimony which consisteth in their being one Flesh And whereas it is written That whosoever shall Marry her that is Divorced committeth Adultery they will have it to be meant only of such as shall Marry her who is Divorced for any other cause or reason than for Fornication which they inferr from the former part of Mat. 5. 32. that whosoever shall put away his Wife saving for the cause of Fornication causeth her to commit Adultery so that for the cause of Fornication it is lawful to put her away and whosoever shall Marry her that is say they Divorced for any other cause committeth Adultery whence they would inferr that a Remarriage after Divorce for the cause of Fornication is not forbidden And as for that Divorce or Separation à Thoro Mensa they look on it as no current Coin not having as they pretend Caesar's Image or Superscription thereon but seem very positive in affirming that Phaâ—isaei interrogabant Christum de dimissione quoad vinculum non quoad Thorum mensam It is true indeed by the Judicial Law a Woman Divorced from her Husband in causa Adulterii might be another Mans Wife which is no contradiction to Mat. 5. 22. if the Divorce there mentioned be à vinculo But that which such as are for Post-repudiary Marriages much insist on is that which the Reverend Mr. Beza hath on the like place Qui hinc colligunt says he post Repudium Nullum esse secundo Matrimonio locum altera parte existente inepte colligunt loquitur enim Christus de Repudiis apud Judaeos usitatis inter quae numerari non potest Repudium ob Adulterium cum Adulteros ex lege oportet Capitali poena plecti 7 If ingressus in Religionem be as some understand it a kind of Mors Civilis then it should seem it might be for that reason that in such case it was lawful for the other Party convolare ad secundas Nuptias for by the 118 Canon of Egbert Archbishop of York An. 750. called Canon Affricaâ—ensis in exceptionibus suis è Canonibus
causes of Divorce Cod. lib. 5. tit 17. l. 8. But the Canon Law decrees otherwise In the time of Ed. 1. William de Chadworth was Divorced because he carnally knew the Daughter of his Wife before he Married her Mother The Stat. of 1 Jac. cap. 11. is the first Act of Parliament that was made against Polygamy Polygamia est plurium simul virorum uxorumve connubium The difference between Bigamy or Trigamy c. and Polygamy is Quia Begamus seu Trigamus c. est qui diversis temporibus successive duas seu tres c. uxores habuit Polygamus qui duas vel plures simul duxit uxores And if the Man be above the Age of fourteen which is his Age of Consent and the Woman above the Age of twelve which is her Age of Consent though they be within the Age of twenty one yet they are within the danger of the Stat. of 1 Jac. cap. 11. Co. Inst Par. 3. Cap. 27. vid. Instit par 1. Sect. 104. 3. This matter of Divorce hath often ministred occasion for high debates and altercations touching second Marriages As whether a Divorce by reason of Adultery in either of the Married Parties doth so dissolve the Marriage à vinculo as that it may be lawful for the Innocent Party to Marry again during the others life By the 107 th Canon It is provided that in all Sentences for Divorce security be given and Bonds taken for not Marrying during each others life By enjoyning such security to be given and such Bonds to be taken This seems to be a Penal Canon viz. pecuniarily Penal whoever therefore breaks the Law incurrs the penalty and whoever suffers the penalty doth answer and satisfie the Law which before he had infring'd a penalty expressed or implied provided for in and annexed unto a Law that is in it self prohibitory seems to create some qualification of that legal prohibition Prohibitio vim suam exercere potest per poenam vel expressam vel arbitrariam Et hoc genus Leges Imperfectas vocat Vlpianus quae fieri quid vetant sed factum non rescindunt So Grotius Grot. de jure Bel. Pacis lib. 2. cap. 5. Sect. 16. But to speak a little nigher to the point in hand it is Grotius again in the same place Si Lex humana conjugia inter certas personas contrahi prohibeat non ideo sequitur irritum fore Matrimonium si re ipsa contrabatur sunt enim diversa prohibere irritum quid facere The Laws whether Ecclesiastical or Temporal are not of any private interpretation yet to speak herein only hypothetically if this be interpretative as a penal Canon by vertue of the said Security and Bond then apposit and observable is that which Grotius hath in another place in Casu Legis Paenalis his words are these viz. Rex qui est Auctor Legis ubi Regni ipsius personam auctoritatem sustinet qua talis est potest legem etiam totam tollere quia Legis humanae natura est ut à voluntate humana pendeat non in Origine tantum sed in duratione Sicut autem totam Legem tollere potest ita vinculum ejus circa personam aut factum singulare manente de caetero lege Dei ipsius exemplo Qui Lactantio teste legem cum poneret non utique ademit sibi omnem potestatem sed habet ignoscendi licentiam Imperatori inquit Augustinus Licet revocare sententiam Reum mortis absolvere ipsi ignoscere Causam explicat Quia non est Subjectus Legibus qui habet in potestate Leges ferre Grot. ibid. de Paenis cap. 20. Sect. 24. How farr the power of Princes may extend it self in this matter is not before us But clear it is that all such as acknowledge the Regal Supremacy will withall confess that his Majesty hath more right to dispence with Canons within his own Dominions ex plenitudine potestatis Regalis than was here formerly exercised ex usurpatione potestatis Papalis In all Laws that are both Prohibitory and Penal as they are of the more force by reason of their Prohibitory quality so they seem to abate of that force by reason of the annexed penalty for he that suffers the penalty satisfies the Law though he transgress the Command The Statute of primo Jacobi hath a Proviso or exception to second Marriages by persons legally Divorced no Caitons or Constitutions prevail or are executable in repugnancy to the Kings Prerogative or to the Laws or Statutes of this Realm That Statute of primo Jacobi prohibiting second Marriages during the Life of each other doth not only not extend to persons legally Divorced but as to such it is with an exception limitation or proviso as aforesaid Sir Ed. Coke taking notice hereof in Porters Case reports that that Statute extends only to persons which are Divorced by Sentence in the Spiritual Court And that distinction of Total and Partial Divorce Or that vel à vinculo vel à Mensa Thoro will not it seems satisfie all Judgments some alledging that ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemus applying that Rule ad Evangelium also and thence will not be perswaded but that the innocent party in Causa Divortii ob Adulterium may Marry again altera parte existente because though they know it to be otherwise by Text Canonical yet know not where to find it so by Text Scriptural and specially because they find a Proviso in the said Statute of primo Jacobi that the parties Divorced by sentence if he take another Wife or she take another Husband shall not be within the danger of the Statute And that this extends to every manner of Sentence of Divorce and not to any particular cause of Divorce Cajetan though of the Roman Church yet on the 19 th of Matthew saith Intelligo ex hac Domini Jesu Christi lege licitum esse Christiano dimittere uxorem ob fornicationem carnalem ipsius uxoris posse aliam ducere and soon after adds Non solum miror sed stupeo quod Christo clare excipiente causam fornicationis torrens Doctorum non admittat illam Mariti libertatem This Question Whether after Divorce for Fornication it be lawful to Mary again during the Lives of the parties Divorced is at large handled by the learned Doctor Hammond in his Treatise of Divorces where he says that Mat. 19. 9. and Mark 10. 6. are two places of such perspicuity one Cause of Divorce allowed the Christians that great Breach of the Conjugal Vow and whosoever Divorces and Marries again save in that one Case punctually named committeth Adultery that as no Paraphrase can make them more Intelligible So there is but one Question that can reasonably be started in them viz. Whether he that puts away his Wife on this one authentick cause be so perfectly freed from the Conjugal Vow and Bands that
Scorto Natus in Ecclesiâ—m Domini usque ad decimam generationem Yet the Pope doth usually dispence with that Canon specially where such Illegitimates live commendably and follow not the vicious practice of their Parents In illis qui paterna vitia non sequuntur possunt suffragari virtutes quae inducent Sâ—mmum Pontificem ad Dispensandum si morum honestas eos Commendabiles reddat c. Presbyterorum 56. Distin And lest such should conceive themselves causlesly injured by that Prohibition the Canonists assign three Reasons for it the one is the Dignity of the Clergy and the Sacraments which ought not to be committed to Infamous persons Another is in detestation of their Parents Crime which commonly extends also to their Children The third is the Parents Incontinency and because the Children do for the most part inherit their Parents Vices cap. Si gens Angelorum 56. Distin Yet a Modern Historian speaking of Pope Leo the Seventh An. 935. says out of Luitprandus that Bozon Bishop of Placentia Theobald of Millain and another great Prelate were all the Bastards of Hugo King of Italy by his three Queens Bezola Rosa and Stephana whom he termed Venus Juno and Semalo vid. Prideaux 's Compend Introduct of Hist p. 106. Edit 5. Next follows the matter of Divorce which is the separation of Married persons by force of the Sentence of an Ecclesiastical Judge qualified to pronounce the same Adultery in either party is the common though not the only cause of Divorce Some there are it seems of great Reputation in the Church for this is Quaestio tam Theologiae quam Juris who positively condemn it as unlawful for a Man or Woman to live with their Husband or Wife respectively if either of them be notoriously guilty of Adultery Of which Opinion was St. Hierom saying That a man is Sub maledictione si Adulteram retineat And St. Chrysostome Fatuus iniquus qui retinet Meretricem Patronus enim Turpitudinis est qui celat Crimen uxoris So that it was none of Cato's wisdom nor any great piece of kindness done his Friend Hortensius to lend him his wife Martia whose Chastity deserv'd a better requital Socrates also is reported to be as kind-hearted in this matter as ever Cato was and they are both said to lend their Wives as freely as a man lends an Utensil As these Wife men were beyond the reach of a Diovorce so they were more serious than to blush at Cornutism the common Fate of such Philosophers St. Basil was of Opinion That it was lawful for a Woman still to cohabit with an adulterous Husband to which purpose he made a Canon and commanded it to be done in his Church as appears in his Epistle to Amphilochius 1. Can. 9. 21. This also was the Sentence of St. Austin to Pollentius and in his Book de Adulterinis Conjugiis David received his wife Michal who had lived with another man St. Basil it seems though he be of opinion that the Woman should still live with the Adulterous Husband yet does not think it fit that the man should be so obliged as to his Adulterous Wife The Council of Eliberis refused to give the Sacrament to a Clergy-man that did not instantly expel from his house his Wife whom he knew to commit Adultery And by the Council of Neo-Caesarea he was to be deposed from his Dignity in the same case In the Council of Trent there was a Canon made having an Anathema added to it which condemned those that say That the Bond of Marriage is dissolved by Adultery and that either of the parties may contract another Matrimony whilst the other liveth And by the Fifth Anathematism of that Council 22. July 1563. were condemned Divorces allowed in Justinian's Code which Anathematism was added at the instance of the Cardinal of Lorain to oppose the Opinion of the Calvinists In the same Council upon the Article of Divorce it was said by one of the Fathers there that the Matrimonial Conjunction was distinguish'd into Three parts the Bond the Cohabitation and the Carnal Copulation inferring that there were as many Separations also and that the Ecclesiastical Prelate had power to separate the Married or to give them a Divorce in respect of the Two latter the Matrimonial Bond still standing sure so that neither can marry again Yet the Gospel admits but of one cause of Divorce viz. Fornication which should seem to be understood de Vinculo because Divorce in the other respects may have many Causes Of all Personal Actions within the Ecclesiastical Cognizance that of Defamation seems to be of the tenderest concern if that be observed which Solomon says That a Good Name is to be chosen before great Riches where by Name nothing can be understood other than a mans Credit Fame and Reputation in the World So that the Inference is clear a Defamer is the worst of Thieves the Sacrilegious ones excepted yet were it not for the sweetness of Revenge and the encouragement of the Law such Actions might be better spar'd than what it costs to maintain them and such ill-scented Suits do savour worse being kept alive in a Tribunal than they would by being buried in Oblivion specially if the Defamed considered that to forget Injuries is the best use we can make of a bad Memory This Defamation is not properly that which we call Detractio for Detractio in its proper signification is alienae famae occulta injusta violatio but Defamation though it be an unjust yet it is not an occult violation of another mans Fame or Reputation they have indeed both the same end but they do not both take the same way to that end they both aim and design the extinguishing or diminishing the Credit and Repute which one man hath in the mind and good opinion of another but the one doth it more openly and publickly at least not in so clandestine way as the other This Defamatio is of near affinity to that which we call Contumelia which is an unlawful violation of a persons Honour and Reputation by undecent and false Speeches Gestures or Actions on purpose to disgrace him only in this also they differ that Defamatio may be of one man to another in the absence of the Defamed but Contumelia is not but to the party present vel absenti tanquam praesenti that is in the prrsence of such as have a relative representation of the person Contumeliously so reproached Touching Actions of Defamation there are two Questions raised rather by the Casuists than Canonists the one Whether the Heirs of the Defamer be obliged to make restitution of Dammage to the Defamed in case the Defamer died before satisfaction made the other Whether satisfaction for the dammage done by Defamation be to be made to the Heirs of the Defamed in case he died before such dammages were recovered by him Although both these Questions are answered in the Negative by
1 Eliz. And it is not within the Statute and although it be within the Commission yet they have not Jurisdiction The words of the Statute are That such Jurisdictions and Priviledges c. as by any Ecclesiastical power have heretofore been or lawfully may be exercised for the Visitation of Ecclesiastical State and Persons and for reformation of the same and for all manner of Errors Heresies Schisms Abuses Offences Contempts and Enormities c. These words extend only to men who stir up Dissentions in the Church as Schisimaticks and new-sangled Men who offend in that kind Henden Serjeant The Suit is there for reformation of Manners and before the new amendment of the Commissions Prohibitions were granted if they meddled with Adultery or in Case of Defamations but now by express words they have power of these matters And that matter is punishable by the Commissioners for two Causes 1 There is within the Act of Parliament by the words annexed all Jurisdictions Ecclesiastical c. 2 It gives power to the Commissioners to exercise that And that is meerly Ecclesiastical being only pro reformatione morum c. The King by his Prerogative having Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction may grant Commissions to determine such things 5 Rep. Ecclesiastical Cases fol. 8. And Richardson said The Statute de Articulis Cleri gave cognizance to the Ordinary for laying violent hands on a Clerk But you affirm That all is given to the Commissioners and thereby they should take all power from the Ordinary But by the Court the Commissioners cannot meddle for a stroke in Church-Land nor pro subtractione Decimarum And yet they have express Authority by their Commission for by that course all the Ordinaries in England should be to no purpose And so upon much debate a Prohibition was granted On an Arrest on Christmas-day it was said by Richardson Chief Justice That upon Arresting a man upon Christmas-day going to Church in the Church-yard He who made the Arrest may be censured in the Star-Chamber for such an Offence Quod Nota. It was also said by Richardson that if a man submit himself out of the Diocess to any Suit he can never have a Prohibition because the Suit was not according to the Statute 23 H. 8. commenced within the proper Diocâ—ss as it was Adjudged Quod Nota It the Ecclesiastical Court proceed in a matter that is meer Spiritual and pertinent to their Court according to the Civil Law although their proceedings are against the Rules of the Common Law yet a Prohibition does not lie As if they refuse a single Witness to prove a Will for the cognizance of that belongs to them And Agreed also That if a man makes a Will but appoints no Executor that that is no Will but void But if the Ordinary commits the Administration with that annexed the Legatary to whom any Legacy is devised by such Will may sue the Administrator for their Legacies in the Ecclesiastical Court Note P. 4. Jac. B. R. Peep's Case a Prohibition was denied where they in the Ecclesiastical Court refused a single Witness in proof of payment of a Legacy After Prohibition if the Temporal Judge shall upon sight of the Libel conceive that the Spiritual Court ought to determine the cause he is to award a Consultation And by the Staâ— of 50 E. 3. c. 4. the Ecclesiastical Judge may proceed by vertue of the Consultation once granted notwithstanding any other Prohibition afterwards if the matter in the Libel be not enlarged or changed B. Administrator of A. makes C. his Executor and dies C. is sued in the Ecclesiastical Court to make an Account of the goods of A. the first Intestate And C. now moves for a Prohibition and had it for an Executor shall not be compel'd to an Account But an Administrator shall be compel'd to Account before the Ordinary Resolved by the Court That a Prohibition shall not be awarded to the Admiral or Ecclesiastical Courts after Sentence Also that a Plea was there pleaded and refused which was Triable at Common Law Note A Prohibition was awarded upon the Statute of 23 H. 8. because the party was sued out of the Diocâ—ss And now a Consultation was prayed because the Interiour Court had remitted that Cause to the Arches and their Jurisdiction also yet a Consultation was denied A Suit was in the Ecclesiastical Court and Sentence passed for one with Costs and nine months after the Costs are Assest and Taxed and then comes a Pardon of 21 Jac. which relates before the taxing of the Costs But afterwards the Sentence and that Pardon was pleaded and allowed in discharge of the Costs Then W. who had recovered sues an Appeal and P. brought a Prohibition and well and no Consultation shall be awarded because by the Court that Pardon relating before the Taxation of Cost had discharged them As 5. Rep. 51. Hall's Case B. and Two others sue upon three several Libels in the Ecclesiastical Court and they joyn in a Prohibition And by the Court that is not good But they ought to have had three several Prohibitions and therefore a Consultation was granted Mich. 26 27 Eliz. C. B. If A. Libels against B. for Three things by one Libel B. may have One or Three Prohibitions Note Dyor 171. 13. By the Statute of 25 H. 8. cap. 19. Appeals to Rome being prohibited it is Ordained That for default of Justice in any of the Courts of the Archbishops of this Realm c. it shall be lawful to Appeal to the King in his High Court of Chancery and thereupon a Commission shall be granted c. And by a Proviso towards the end of that Statute an Appeal is granted to the King in Chancery on Sentences in places exempt in such manner as was used before to the See of Rome So that this Court grounded on the said Commission is properly as well as vulgarly called The Court of Delegates for that the Judges thereof are Delegated to fit by virtue of the Kings said Commission under his Great Seal upon an Appeal to him in Chancery and that specially in Three Causes 1 When a Sentence is given in any Ecclesiastical Cause by the Archbishop or his Official 2 When any Sentence is given in any Ecclesiastical Cause in places exempt 3 When a Sentence is given in the high Court of Admiralty in Suits or Actions Civil and Maritime according to the Civil Law That this Court of Delegates may Excommunicate was Resolved by all the Judges in the Archbishop of Canterbury's Case They may also commit or grant Letters of Administration This Court of Delegates is the highest Court for Civil Affairs that concern the Church for the Jurisdiction whereof it was provided 25 H. 8. That it shall be lawful for any Subject of England in case of defect of Justice in the Courts of the Archbishop of Canterbury to Appeal to the King's Majesty in his Court of Chancery and
and used in part by several Nations he compiled them into Volumes and called them Jus Canonicum and Ordained that they should be read and expounded in publick Schools and Universities as the Imperial Law was read and expounded and commanded that they should be observed and obeyed by all Christians on pain of Excommunication and often endeavoured to put them in execution by Coercive power and assumed to himself the power of interpreting abrogating and dispensing with those Laws in all the Realms of Christendom at his pleasure so that the Canonists ascribe to him this prerogative Papa in omnibus jure positivis in quibusdam ad jus divinum pertinentibus dispensare potest quia dicitur omnia Jura habere in Scrinio pectoris sui quantum ad interpretationem dispensationem Lib. 6. de Const cap. licet About the time of An. 25. Ed. 1. Simon a Monk of Walden began to read the Canon Law in the University of Cambridge vid. Stow and Walsingham in that year Also the Manusc libr. 6. Decretal in New-Colledge Library at Oxford hath this Inscription in the Front Anno Domini 1298. which was in the year 26 Ed. 1. 19. Novembr in Ecclesia Fratrum Praedicator Oxon. fuit facta publicatio lib. 6. Decretal whereby it appears when it was that the Canon Law was introduced into England But the Jurisdiction which the Pope by colour thereof claimed in England was a meer Usurpation to which the Kings of England from time to time made opposition even to the time of King H. 8. And therefore the Ecclesiastical Law which Ordained That when a man is created a Bishop all his Inferiour Benefices shall be void is often said in the Bishop of St. David's Case in 11 H. 4. to be the Ancient Law of England And 29 Ed. 3. 44. a. in the Case of the Prebend of Oxgate it is said That though the Constitution which ousts Pluralities began in the Court of Rome yet a Church was adjudged void in the Kings Bench for that cause or reason whereby it appears That after the said Constitution was received and allowed in England it became the Law of England Yet all the Ecclesiastical Laws of England were not derived from the Court of Rome for long before the Canon Law was authorized and published in England which was before the Norman Conquest the Ancient Kings of England viz. Edgaâ— Aethelstan Alfred Edward the Confessor and others have with the Advice of their Clergy within the Realm made divers Ordinances for the government of the Church of England and after the Conquest divers Provincial Synods have been held and many Constitutions have been made in both Realms of England and Ireland All which are part of our Ecclesiastical Laws at this day Vid. Le Charter de William le Conqueror Dat. An. Dom. 1066. irrot 2 R. 2. among the Charters in Archiv Turris Lond. pro Decano Capitulo Lincoln Willielmus Dei gratia Rex Anglorum c. Sciatis c. Quod Episcopales Leges quae non bene nec secundum Sanctorum Canonum praecepta usque ad mea tempora in Regno Angliae fuerunt Communi Concilio Episcoporum meorum caeterorum Episcoporum omnium Principum Regni mei emendandas judicavi c. See also Girald Cambrens lib. 2. cap. 34. in the time of King H. 2. a Synod of the Clergy of Ireland was held at the Castle wherein it was Ordained Quod omnia divina juxta quod Anglicana observat Ecclesia in omnibus partibus Hyberniae amodo tractentur Dignum enim justissimum est ut sicut Dominum Regem ex Anglia divinitus sortita est Hybernia sic etiam exinde vivendi formam accipiant meliorem But the distinction of Ecclesiastical or Spiritual Causes from Civil and Temporal Causes in point of Jurisdiction was not known or heard of in the Christian World for the space of 300 years after Christ For the causes of Testaments of Matrimony of Bastardy and Adultery and the rest which are called Ecclesiastical or Spiritual Causes were meerly Civil and determined by the Rules of the Civil Law and subject only to the Jurisdiction of the Civil Magistrate But after the Emperours had received the Christian Faith out of a zeal they had to honour the learned and godly Bishops of that time they singled out certain special Causes wherein they granted Jurisdiction unto the Bishops viz. in Causes of Tithes because they were paid to men of the Church in Causes of Matrimony because Marriages were for the most part solemnized in the Church in Causes Testamentary because Testaments were many times made in extremis when Church-men were present giving Spiritual comfort to the Testator and therefore were thought the fittest persons to take the Probats of such Testaments Howbeit these Bishops did not then proceed in these Causes according to the Canons and Decrees of the Church for the Canon Law was not then known but according to the Rules of the Imperial Law as the Civil Magistrate did proceed in other Causes so that the Primitive Jurisdiction in all these Causes was in the Supream Civil Magistate and though it be now derived from him yet it still remaineth in him as in the Fountain CHAP. XII Of Churches Chappels and Church-yards 1. Ecclesia what that word imports the several kinds thereof 2. Possessions of the Church protected by the Statute-Laws from Alienation the care of the Emperour Justinian in that point 3. To whom the Soyl and Freehold of the Church and Church-yard belong to whom the use of the Body of the Church to whom the disposal of the Pewes or Seats and charges of Repairs 4. The Common Law touching the Reparation of Churches and the disposal of the Seats therein 5. The same Law touching Isles Pictures Coats of Arms and Burials in Churches also of Assaults in Churches and Church-yard 6. The penalty of quarreling chiding brawling striking or drawing a Weapon in the Church or Church-yard 7. Where Prescription to a Seat in a Church is alledged the Common Law claims the cognizance thereof 8. The Immunities anciently of Church-Sanctuary as also of Abjuration now abrogated and taken away by Statute 9. The defacing of Tombs Sepulchres or Monuments in Churches punishable at the Common Law also of Right to Pewes and Seats in the Church 10. The Cognizance of Church-Reparations belongs to the Ecclesiastical Court 11. A Prohibition upon a surmize of a custome or usage for Contribution to repair a Church 12. Church-wardens are a Corporation for the Benefit not for the Prejudice of the Church 13. Inheritance cannot be charged with a Tax for Repairs of the Church nor may a perpetual charge be imposed upon Land for the same 14. When the use of Church-Books for Christnings first began 15. Chappel the several kinds thereof The Canonists Conceits touching the derivation of that word 16. Where two Parochial Churches are united the charge of Reparations shall be several as before 17. The Emperour Justinian's
which an Advowson appertains but only for term of their lives or of years by Intrusion or Disseism 6. A Church may become Litigious both before and by and after a Jure Patronatus Before as by a plurality of Presentations By as when in case of plurality of Presentations upon a plural Jure Patronatus the one Jury gives a Verdict for the Title of one Patron the other for the Title of the other Patron After as when after a Jure Patronatus awarded and Verdict thereupon given for one of the parties a third person presents before Admittance of his Clerk for whom the Verdict was given Upon a plural Jure Patronatus if one Jury give a Verdict for the Title of the one the other for the Title of the other Patron it is conceived in that case the Ordinary may refuse the Clerks of both Patrons and suffer the Church to Lapse And where a Third person presents after a Verdict as aforesaid but before the Clerk be Admitted whereby the Church becomes Litigious de Novo in that case the Bishop may award a new Jure Patronatus Also if the Bishop doubt the Patrons Title that presents he may as some conceive award a Jure Patronatus albeit the Church be not Litigious which is a safe way for prevention of any surprize to the rightful Patron or other Pretenders in which case if the Right of Patronage be found for another that had not before presented his Clerk may be admitted by the Ordinary who is no Disturber if he admit a Clerk that is presented before the Church becomes Litigious by a Second presentation for by the Verdict of the Jury aforesaid he is sufficiently warranted to admit and institute the Clerk for whose Patrons Title the Verdict is given in doing whereof he is no Disturber albeit the other Patron against whom the Verdict is given should after recover in a Quare Impedit And after a Verdict in a Jure Patronatus found for a Patron he ought to renew his Request to the Ordinary for the admission of his Clerk otherwise the Bishop may Collate in case the Church Lapse after Six months 7. Sir John Arundell and his Wife brought a Quare Impedit against the Bishop of Gloucester and others who pleaded in Bar that William Sturton was seized of a Mannor to which the Advowson was appendent and bound himself in a Statute-Merchant of 200 l. to one Long and the Statute was extended and conveyed the interest of the Statute to one of the Defendants and then the Church became void And by the Court the Advowson may be extended and if it become void during the Conusees Estate the Conusee may present 8. In Beverley's Case against the Archbishop of Canterbury where the question was Whether the Queen might take her turn to Present in regard she took not her turn when the first Lapse happened immediately at the first Avoidance by reason of the Incumbents having Two Benefices within the Stat. of 21 H. 8. And all the Justices of the Common Pleas after long and serious debate did Resolve That the Queen shall not now have her Presentation but the Patron because the Queen hath such Presentment by Lapse as the Bishop had and no other and could Present but to the present Avoydance then void And although Nullum tempus occurrit Regi yet we must distinguish it thus for where the King is limited to a time certain or to that which in it self is Transitory there the King is to do it within the time limited or in that time wherein the thing to be done hath Essence or Consistence or while it remaineth for otherwise he may not do it afterwards So where a Second presentment is granted to the King and he does not Present he may not after 9. During a Vacancy the Freehold of the Glebe is in Abeiance and not in the Patron who can take no benefit thereby in that time nor can he have any Action for Trespass done thereon in the time of such Vacancy Yet if a man hath an Annuity out of a Parsonage and he in the Vacancy thereof Release to the Patron it shall extinguish the Annuity 21 H. 7. 41 Co. 5. Forde 81. b. 10. If a Church becomes void by the death of the Incumbent or otherwise and the Patron within Six months bring a Quare Impedit against the Bishop and then Six months pass without any Clerk presented by the Patron to the Bishop in that case the Lapse shall incur notwithstanding the pendency of the Writ for it is not reasonable that the Ordinary should lose his Title of Lapse without any wrong done by him by a fraudulent Action brought without cause by the Patron and whereby the Ordinary is put to Expences without cause and by such fraudulent means the Patron might keep the Church perpetually void Hob. Rep. 270. Roll. Abr. verb. Presentment lit X. pag. 366. 11. The Jus Appellandi in defect of Justice and the Jus Praesentandi in case of Lapse seem to have a parallel resemblance with one another in their gradations for as they both primarily meet in the Ordinary so they both pass from him to the Metropolitan and from him to the King not only as Supream Ordinary but also as Patron Paramount of all the Bishopricks in England which as they were originally Donative per Annulum Baculum so now since King Johns time they are by Canonical Election for King John by his Charter dated the 15th of January in the 16th year of his Reign granted this priviledge to the Church in these words viz. Quod qualiscunque Consuetudo temporibus Praedecessorum nostrorum hactenus in Ecclesia Anglicana fuerit observata quicquid juris nobis hactenus Vindicaverimus de caetero in universis singulis Ecclesiis Monasteriis Cathedralibus Conventualibus totius Regni Angliae Liberae sint in perpetuum Electiones quorumcunque Praelatorum majorum minorum Salva Nobis haeredibus nostris Custodia Ecclesiarum Monasteriorum vacantium quae ad nos pertinent Promittimus etiam quod Nec impediemus nec impediri permittemus per Ministros nostros nec procurabimus quin in universis singulis Monasteriis Ecclesiis postquam vacuerint Praelaturâ—â— quemcunque voluerint Libere sibi praeficiant Electores Pastorum petita tamen à Nobis prius haeredibus nostris Licentia Eligendi quam non denegabimus nec differemus Et similiter post celebratam Electionem noster requiratur Assensus quem non denegabimus nisi adversus eandem Rationale proposuerimus legitime probaverimus propter quod non debemus consentire c. Vid. Davis Rep. in the case of Praemunire â—o 92 93. CHAP. XVII Of Parsons and Parsonages 1. Parson what he is in the intendment of Law 2. What is meant by Parson imparsonee 3. The Freehold of Church and Glebe is in the Parson what interest he hath in the Church-yard and
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