After Verdict upon Not Guilty found for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgment by Grimston that these words are not Actionable For for calling Whore there lies not any Action and to say that her Children by her former Husband are Frambishes Bastards is repugnant in it self for they cannot be Bastards which were born in the time of her former Husband But all the Court held that the Action well lies For to say of a Widow who is in Comnunication of Marriage with another that she plaid the Whore in her former Husbands time is a great Discredit And to say that her Children are Bastards although in truth they cannot be Bastards in Law yet in Reputation they may be so is cause of loss of her Marriage and that none will marry with her wherefore it was adjudged for the Plaintiff 11. Action upon the Case Whereas he keepeth an Alehouse Licenced by Justices of the Peace that the Defendant to scandalize the Plaintiffs Wife spake these words of her Hang thee Bawd Thou art worse than a Bawd Thou keepest a House worse than a Bawdy house And thou keepest a Whore in thy House to pull out my Throat Upon not guilty pleaded found for the Plaintiff Stone moved in Arrest of Judgment that these words are not Actionable but agreed that for saying One is a Bawd and keeps a Bawdy house Action lies because it is a temporal Offence for which the Common Law inflicts punishment But to call one Bawd without further speaking an Action lies not no more than to call one Whore But it is a Defamation punishable in the Spiritual Court And to say That be keeps a House worse thaâ— a Bawdy house hath not any intendment what he means thereby wherefore the Action lies not And if it be intended that such words should hinder Guests from coming thither being an Alehouse the Husband only ought to have brought the Action And as to that the Court absente Richardson agreed But for the other words they held the Action lies by the Husband and Wife for the slander to his Wife and it is as much as if he had said that she keepeth a Bawdy house wherefore it was adjudged for the Plaintiff 12. A prohibition was prayed bâ—bâ—cause A. and his Wife sued in the Ecclesiastical Court for Defamation and speaking these words of the Plaintiff He was a Cuckold and a Wittal which is worse than a Cuckold and that Aylsworth had layen with Ayloffs Wife And for these Defamatory words he sued there and because it was alledged that for these words being but words of Spleen Prohibitions had been usually granted day was thereupon given until this Term to shew cause why a Prohibition should not be granted and divers presidents were shewd that for calling one Cuckold or Whore Prohibitions have been granted But now upon advertisement all the Court agreed that no Prohibition should be granted but that the Ecclesiastical Court should have Jurisdiction thereof For although they agreed that there ought not to have been any Suit for the first words they being too general yet being coupled with a particular shewing that the Wife committed such an Offence with such a particular person they be not now general words of spleen in common and usual discourse and parlance But they held it was a Defamation suable in the Spiritual Court whereupon the Prohibition was denied Brownlow chief Protonotary produced on that occasion several presidents where Prohibitions had been granted to stay Suits for such words viz. Trin. 15. Jac. rot 2260. Purchas vers Birrel for that he was presented at several enquests within his Parish for being a Drunkard and a Barretor And Pasch 6. Jac. rot 397. Prohibition to stay a Suit for calling a Parson Hedge-Priest And Mich. 21. Jac. Barker vers Pasmore She is a Quean and a tainted Quean Prohibition granted 13. H. Prays a Prohibition to stay a Suit in the Spiritual Court of Defamation for speaking these words Thou art a Bawd and I will prove thee a Bawd And because these are words properly dererminable in the Spiritual Court and for which no Action lies at the Common Law a prohibition was denied But for saying Thou keepest a house of Bawdry this being matter determinable at Common Law by Indictment Suit shall not be in the Spiritual Court vid. 27 H. 8. and Co. lib. 4. fo 20. 14. Prohibition was prayed to the Ecclesiastical Court to stay a Suit there for Defamation for these words Thou art a Drunkard or drunken fellow And by the opinion of Croke Jones and Berkley a Prohibition was granted For these words do not concern any Spiritual matter but meerly Temporal and they be but Convitium Temporale and a common phrase of brawling for which there ought not to be a Suit in the Spiritual Court and so it was held in Martin Calthorp's Case in C. B. but Richardson doubted thereof because the Spiritual Court as well as the Temporal may meddle with the punishment of drunkenness so it is not meerly Temporal But he assented to the grant of a Prohibition and the Party may if he will demurr thereto whereupon a Prohibition was granted 15. Prohibition was prayed by Bulstrod for Gobbet to stay a Suit in the Spiritual Court for Defamation in speaking these words He is a Cuckoldly Knave and cited presidents that for saying He is a Knave and a cheating Knave Suit being in the Spiritual Court a Prohibition was granted upon good advisement and the Court said that president is not like to this Case for there was not any offence wherewith the Spiritual Court ought to meddle but in this Case for these words it is properly to be examined and punished there pro reformatione morum for it is a disgrace to the Husband as well as to the Wife because he suffers and connives at it whereupon absente Richardson the Prohibition was denied Again it was moved that this should be granted upon the Statute of 23 H. 8. because he was sued in the Court of the Arches which is in the Archbishops Jurisdiction and the words were spoken at Thistleworth in London Diocess as appeared by the Libel But Jones said that he was informed by Dr. Duck. Chancellor of London that there hath been for long time a composition betwixt the Bishop of London and the Archbishop of Canterbury that if any Suit be begun before the Archbishop it shall be always permitted by the Bishop of London so as it is quasi a general License and so not sued there but with the Bishops assent and for that reason the Archbishop never makes any Visitation in London Diocess And hereupon also the Prohibition was denied 16. Action for that the Defendant had said of and to the Plaintiff being of good same and one who had served as Captain in the Wars haec verba in London Thou art a Pimp averring that in London that word was known to be intended a Bawd and further said that he
He may have a Writ out of Chancery to Absolve him 14 H. 4. fol. 14. And with this agrees 7 Ed. 4. 14. 2 When he is Excommunicated against the Law of this Realm so that he cannot have a Writ de Cautione admittenda then he ought Parere mandatis Ecclesiae in forma Juris i. e. Ecclesiastici where in truth it 's Excommunicatio contra Jus formam Juris i. e. Communis Juris But if he shew his Cause to the Bishop and request him to assoil him either because he was Excommunicate after the Offence pardoned or that the Cause did not appear in Ecclesiastical Cognizance and he refuse he may have as the Lord Coke sayes an Action sur le Case against the Ordinary and with this agrees Dr. Stu. lib. 2. cap. 32. fo 119. 3 If the party be Excommunicated for none of the Causes mentioned in the Act of 5 Eliz. cap. 23. then he may plead this in the Kings Bench and so avoid the Penalties in the Act. Note It was Resolved by the Court c. That where one is Cited before the Dean of the Arches in cause of Defamation for calling the Plaintiff Whore out of the Diocess of London against the Statute of 23 H. 8. and the Plaintiff hath Sentence and the Defendant is Excommunicated and so continues Forty daies and upon Certificate into Chancery a Writ of Excommunicato Capiendo is granted and the Defendant taken and Imprisoned thereby That he shall not have a Prohibition upon the Statute of 23 H. 8. for no Writ in the Register extends to it but there is a Writ there called De Cautione admittenda de parendo Mandatis Ecclesiae when the Defendant is taken by the Kings Writ De Excommunicato Capiendo and to assoil and deliver the Defendant 25. Where the Court of B. R. was moved for the Bailing of one who was taken by force of a Capias de Excommunicato Capiendo upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. cap. 23. and came to the Barr by a Habeas Corpus Williams Justice He that is taken by force of a Capis de Excommunicato Capiendo is not Bailable upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. cap. 23. which Statute doth only dispense with the Forfeiture of the Ten pounds and such a person is not Bailable and as to the other matter the same remains as it was before at the Common Law and the Statute of 5 Eliz. dispenseth only with the penalty of Ten pounds Yelverton Justice of a contrary Opinion and that in this case he is Bailable Flemming Chief Justice This is a Case which doth deserve very good consideration and that therefore he would consider well of it and also of the Statute of 5 Eliz. before he would deliver his Opinion Williams Justice clearly he is not Bailable in this Case Afterwards at another time it was moved again unto the Court to have him Bailed Yelverton Justice That he is Bailable and so was it Resolved in one Keyser's Case where he was taken by a Writ De Excommunicato Capiendo brought hither by a Habeas Corpus and upon Cause shewed he was Bailed by the Court de die in diem but neither the Sheriff nor any Justice of Peace in the Countrey can Bail such a one but this Court here may well Bail as in the Case before de die in diem It was further alledged here in this That in the Ecclesiastical Court they would not there discharge such a one being taken and Imprisoned by force of such a Writ De Excommunicato Capiendo without a great Sum of Money there given and a Bond entered into for the same otherwise no discharge there Yelverton Justice and the whole Court The Bishop ought not to 〈◊〉 such a Bond for the performance of their submission The Rule of the Court here in this was That upon their submission they shall be Absolved without any such Bond entred into Flemming Chief Justice They shall Absolve them and if they perform not according to their promise and undertaking they 〈…〉 again by the Writ De Corpore Excommunicato Capiendo but the Bishop is to take no Bond of them for their Absolution to perform their Submission the taking of such Bond by them being against the Law And as to the Bailment all the Judges except Williams Justice did agree that he was Bailable and so by the Order and Rule of the Court he was Bailed vid. Bulstr Rep. par 1. fo 122. Pasch 9 Jac. in Case of Hall vers King CHAP. XLIII Of the Statutes of Articuli Cleri and Circumspecte agatis 1. Several Statute-Laws relating to Ecclesiastical persons and things enacted under the Title of Articuli Cleri in the Ninth year of King Ed. 2. 2. Some other Statute-Laws touching Ecclesiastical matters made the Fourteenth year of King Ed. 3. 3. The Ratification and Confirmation of the 39 Articles of Religion The Subscription required of the Clergy 4. Certain Cases wherein a Prohibition doth not lie to the Ecclesiastical Courts according to the Statute of Circumspecte agatis made the Thirteenth of King Ed. 1. And in what case a Consultation shall be granted 1. THese are certain Statutes made in the time of King Ed. 1. and Ed. 2. touching Persons and Causes Spiritual and Ecclesiastical By the latter of these it is Enacted 1 That upon demand of Tithes Oblations c. under that Name a Prohibition shall not lie unless the demand be of money upon the Sale thereof 2 That upon debate of Tithes amounting to a Fourth part of the whole and arising from the Right of Patronage as also upon demand of a Pecuniary penance a Prohibition may lie Not so in case of demand of money voluntarily accorded unto by way of Redemption of Corporal penance enjoyned 3 That upon demand of money Compounded for in lieu of Corporal penance enjoyned for the Excommunication for laying violent hands on a Clerk a Prohibition shall not lie 4 That notwithstanding any Prohibition the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction may take cognizance and correct in Cases of Defamation and the money paid for redeeming the Corporal penance thereon enjoyned may receive notwithstanding a Prohibition be shewed 5 That no Prohibition shall lie where Tithe is demanded of a Mill newly erected 6 That in cases of a Mixt cognizance as in the Case aforesaid of laying violent hands on a Clerk whereby the Kings Peace is broken and such like the Temporal Court may discuss the same matter notwithstanding Judgment given by the Spiritual Court in the case 7 That the Kings Letters may not issue to Ordinaries for the discharge of persons Excommunicate save only in such Cases as wherein the Kings Liberty is prejudiced by such Excommunication 8 That Clerks in the Kings Service if they offend shall be correct by their Ordinaries but Clerks during such time as they are in his Service shall not be oblig'd to Residence at their Benefices 9 That Distresses shall not be taken in the Ancient
s. 6 d. to the Scribe for Registring the same or else the said Scribe to be at his liberty to refuse the said 2 s. 6 d. and to have for writing every ten Lines of the same Testament whereof every Line to contain ten inches one penny If the Executor desire that the Testament in paper may be transcribed in parchment he must agree with the party for the Transcribing but the Ordinary c. can take nothing for that nor for the Examination of the Transcript with the Original but only 2 s. 6 d. for the whole duty belonging to him Where the Goods of the deceased do not exceed five pound the Ordinary c. shall take nothing and the Scribe to have only for writing of the Probat six pence so the said Testament be exhibited in writing with Wax thereunto affixed ready to be sealed Where the Goods of the deceased do amount to above the value of five pound and do not exceed the sum of forty pound there shall be taken for the whole but 3 s. 6 d. whereof to the Ordinary c. 2 s. 6 d. and 12 d. to the Scribe for Registring the same Where by Custome less hath been taken in any of the Cases aforesaid there less is to be taken And where any person requires a Copy or Copies of the Testament so proved or Inventory so made the Ordinary c. shall take for the Search and making of the Copy of the Testament or Inventory if the Goods exceed not five pound six pence and if the Goods exceed five pound and exceed not forty pounds twelve pence And if the Goods exceed forty pounds then two shillings six pence or to take for every Ten lines thereof of the proportion before rehearsed a penny And when the party dies Intestate the Ordinary may dispose somewhat in pious uses notwithstanding the Act of 31 Ed. 3. but with these Cautions 1 That it be after the Administration granted and Inventory made so as the state of the Intestate may be known and thereby the sum may appear to be competent 2 The Administrator must be called to it 3 The use must be publick and godly 4 It must be expressed in particular And 5 There must be a Decree made of it and entred of Record 7. The Court of Audience Curia Audientiae Cantuariensis The Lord Coke touching the Jurisdiction of Courts taking notice of this of the Audience among other of the Ecclesiastical Courts says That this Court is kept by the Archbishop in his Palace and meddleth not with any matter between party and party of any contentious Jurisdiction but dealeth with matters pro forma and Confirmations of Bishops Elections Consecrations and the like and with matters of voluntary Jurisdiction as the granting of the Guardianship of the Spiritualties Sede vacante of Bishops Admissions and Institutions to Benefices dispensing with Banns of Matrimony and such like This Court did belong to the Archbishop of Canterbury and was in point of Authority equal with but in point of Dignity and Antiquity inferiour to the Court of Arches It seems that Anciently the Archbishop of Canterbury did hear divers Causes of Ecclesiastical cognizance Extra-judicially and at home in his own Palace wherein before he would come to any final determination his usage was to commit the discussion thereof to certain persons learned in the Laws Civil and Canon who thereupon were styled his Auditors whence in process of time it center'd in one particular person styled Causarum Negotiorumque Audientiae Cantuariensis Auditor seu Officialis And from hence the Original of this Court is properly derived With this office of the Auditor the Chancery of the Archbishop is said to have been heretofore commonly joyned not controverting any matters of contentious Jurisdiction in any decisions of Causes between Plaintiff and Defendant but such only as were Voluntariae Jurisdictionis ex Officio touching such things only as are fore-specified and such like By the Provincial Constitutions it is Ordained That for the ease of the People they may at times convenient to be assigned by the Bishop have access to their Diocesan Et quod Praelati persâ—â— liter Audiant quaerelas in his Cathedral or next Parochial Church vel in aliqua Maneriorum suorum Capella si talis fuerit Lindw de Offic. Jud. Ord. cap. Statuimus in gloss verb. in Publico It seems not altogether improbable but that from the practice hereof this Court of Audience anciently had its Original as aforesaid And although it be not now in use as heretofore yet considering the Subject-matter it only took cognizance of it was a good Expedient to prevent many Suits at Law in Foro Contentioso 8. Faculty or Court of Faculties in the sense here meant and intended must not be understood according to its original and genuine signification but as a term of Art according to a limited construction restrained under that peculiar notion and particular understanding which the Law hath of it in reference to a branch of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction And so it is understood and commonly used for that Priviledge or especial Power which is legally granted to a man by License favour indulgence and dispensation to have or do that which otherwise by the Canon Law he could not as to eat Flesh upon days prohibited to Marry without Banns first published to hold Two or more Ecclesiastical Benefices incompatible the Son to succeed the Father in his Benefice and such like A Faculty granted to one who is not Incumbent to take a void Benefice is void But a Faculty to one who is Incumbent of a Benefice to retain the same is good It is called Faculties in the Statute of 28 H. 8. cap. 16. Sir Ed. Coke makes mention of the Court of Faculties although it holds no Plea of Controversie It belongs to the Archbishop of Canterbury and his chief Officer thereof is called Magister ad Facultates whose power is to grant Dispensations to the ends and purposes aforesaid and so may every Diocesan as to that of Marriage and eating of Flesh on days prohibited Faculty according to Sir Ed. Coke in the place fore-cited signifies a Dispensation so that Facultates in this sense Dispensationes Indulta are Synonyma Who likewise there says that this Authority was raised and given to the Archbishop of Canterbury by the Statute of 25 H. 8. c. 21. whereby Authority is given to the said Archbishop and his Successors to grant Dispensations Faculties c. by himself or his sufficient and substantial Commissary or Deputy for any such matters commonly called the Master of the Faculties and of all such matters as whereof heretofore such Dispensations Faculties c. then had been accustomed to be had at the See of Rome or by Authority thereof For by the Stat. of 28 H. 8. c. 16. it appears the Bishop of Rome did grant Faculties and Dispensations to the Kings Subjects as Pluralities Unions Trialities Appropriations Commendams Exemptions
sue the Parishioner in the Ecclesiastical Court for Tithes in kind no Prohibition to be granted on that discharge by Deed for they may well try that having cognizance of the Principal If a Parson Lease all the Tithes of his Benefice to the Parishioner and after sue him in the Ecclesiastical Court for his Tithes in his hands no Prohibition to be granted for the Lease is a good discharge there Likewise if the Parishioner grant Land to the Parson for and in lieu of his own Tithes and after the Parson sue him in the Ecclesiastical Court for the Tithes no Prohibition to be granted for that matter will be a good discharge there If a Parson sue for Tithes in the Ecclesiastical Court and the Defendant there plead an Arbitrement in Bar they shall try that there and no Prohibition to be granted upon that c. for by intendment it is a good discharge there Likewise if a Parson sue for Tithes in the Ecclesiastical Court and the Defendant there plead a Lease of them by Deed by the Parson to him rendring Rent to which the Plaintiff says the Rent was reserved upon condition of Non-payment to be void and averrs that it was not paid at a certain day and the other pleads payment at the day This shall be tryed there and no Prohibition granted If a Parson Lease by Deed the Tithes of the Parish and after sues for the Tithes in the Ecclesiastical Court and there the Lease is pleaded where the Question between them is Whether it be the Tithes of the whole Parish or only of some particular things yet no Prohibition lies for they have cognizance of the Original but if they judge contrary to the Common Law a Prohibition lies after Sentence If a man sue for a Legacy in the Ecclesiastical Court and the Defendant plead a Release in Bar and the Plaintiff deny it that shall be tryed there for that it arises from the Original cause whereof they have the Jurisdiction If an Administrator sue for a Legacy due to the Deceased in the Ecclesiastical Court and the Defendant plead the Release of the Deceased in Bar and the Plaintiff avoid it for that the Deceased was an Ideot That Ideocy shall be tryed there and no Prohibition granted for that they have Jurisdiction of the Original matter If a Parson sue in the Ecclesiastical Court and the Defendant there plead that the Plaintiff was presented upon a Simonaical Contract against the Stat. of 31 Eliz. That shall be tryed there for that they have Jurisdiction of the Original thing But the Ecclesiastical Court can take no cognizance of a Custome whereby the Inheritance is perpetually charged although the thing Customable be cognizable by them And therefore if the Church-wardens of the Parish of S. Libel in the Ecclesiastical Court against J. S. Farmer of the Farm of D. for a Contribution to the Reparation of the Church and alledge that part of the Farm lies in the Parish of S. and part thereof in the Parish of W. and alledge a Custome that the Farmers of the said Farm have used time out of mind to contribute to the Reparation of the Church of S. throughout the whole Farm if the Defendant saith that part of the Land of the said Farm lieth within the Parish of W. and that it had used time out of mind c. for that part to contribute to the Church of W. and not to S. and so deny the said Prescription This shall not be Tryed in the Ecclesiastical Court but at the Common Law and for that a Prohibition lies for they shall not try a Custome in the Ecclesiastical Court by which the Inheritance is to be perpetually charged If A. the Parson of D. sue for Tithes in the Ecclesiastical Court against B. who pleads a Lease for years made to him by the Parson To which A. the Parson Replies That he was Non-resident and absent 80 days and more in such a year c. from his Benefice by which the Lease became void No Prohibition lies upon that plea for that it is grounded on the Statute of 13 Eliz. and although it was Objected That the Judges Ecclesiastical shall not have the Exposition of a Statute yet for that they have Jurisdiction of the Original cause they shall have power to try that which incidently doth arise from thence and the Prohibition was denied 18. A Prohibition was prayed upon the Statute of 23 H. 8. for suing for a Legacy of ten pounds in the Prorogative Court whereas the party did dwell in another Diocess but because the Will was proved in that Court and there Sentence was given for the Legacy and an Appeal upon the Sentence to the Delegates where it was affirmed and endeavour was to stay the Suit by the Statute the party having so long allowed of the Jurisdiction of the Court Adjudged the party came too late now to have a Prohibition 19. In Norwood's Case it was held That where a man is sued in the Ecclesiastical Court for slanderous words a General Pardon doth not aid the party for staying the Suit there which is for or ad instantiam partis But contrary where the party is sued there ex officio Judicis 20. In order to a Prohibition it was surmised That the Defendant was a Clerk and assaulted his Servant and he coming to keep the Peace and to aid his Servant laid his hands peacably upon the Defendant for which he sued him in the Ecclesiastical Court where he pleaded this matter and they would not allow of his plea It was said by the Justices That this Case was out of the Statute of Articuli Cleri Circumspecte agatis for here the party had Quaere by what Law for this is not in the Case of Se Defendendo good cause to beat the Clerk and a Prohibition was granted 21. By the Justices if Issue be joyned whether a Church be void by Cession Deprivation or Resignation it shall be Tried by the Countrey because it is a thing mixt for the Avoidance is Temporal and the Deprivation is Spiritual But habilitie Bastardy ne unque accouple en Loyal Matrimony shall be tried by the Certificate of the Bishop but Bastardy pleaded in a Stranger to the Writ shall be tried by the Country 22. A Sentence was given definitive in the Ecclesiastical Court in a Suit there for Tithes pro triplici valore a Prohibition was prayed a special Prohibition was awarded That they should not proceed to the Execution of the Sentence as to the treble value because that Court is not to give the treble value but the double value only 23. In a Case between a Parson and Church-wardens against one Reynolds it was suggested That all those who had the House wherein the said Reynolds did dwell had used to find meat and drink for the Parson and them going in Procession in Rogation-week at his house and
because he did not find them meat and drink they sued him in the Ecclesiastical Court and a Prohibition was awarded because the Custome was a custome against the Law 24. In Babington's Case it was Resolved That if one be sued in the Ecclesiastical Court ex Officio or by Libel and he demand the Copy of the Libel which is denied That a Prohibition lieth in such case Vid. Stat. 2 H. 4. 25. In a Prohibition upon a Libel in the Ecclesiastical Court where the Suit was for Tithe-Apples in discharge of which he there pleaded an Award which was That he was to pay so much for the Tithe pleads there the Arbitrement the which plea they refused supposing this to be void upon this a Prohibition prayed Coke We will not grant a Prohibition in this case So in a Suit there for a Legacy if payment of the same be there pleaded which is not sufficient the payment is Triable there by 1 R. 3. fol. 4. When the Original begins in the Ecclesiastical Court although that afterwards a matter happens in Issue which is Triable at the Common Law yet this shall be tried there by the Ecclesiastical Law As if one do sue there for a Horse to him devised the Defendant there pleads that the Devisor did give this Horse unto him in his life time This is Triable by our Law yet this shall be tried there by their Law In the same manner it is where the Original doth begin here the same shall be tried here by our Law as in a Quare Impedit able or not able if it were otherwise they should there try nothing This is belonging to them But if they will there draw the matter ad aliud examen as upon proof of a Deed they judge otherwise than we do As in case of a Lease for years to be made they hold the same to be Traditione or void And so a Grant of Goods to be delivered or not good If they will judge in Common Law-matters otherwise than we do there in such case a Prohibition lies That which we call Orders they amongst them do call Acts The Court all clear of Opinion That this plea of the Award there pleaded and by them refused no ground for a Prohibition and so by the Rule of the Court a Prohibition was denied And in Dicke's Case against Browne a Prohibition was denied and a Consultation granted because the Ecclesiastical Court as was then admitted having cognizance of the Principal hath cause also there to determine of the Accessory 26. If a Parson sue upon the Stat. of 2 Ed. 6. in the Ecclesiastical Court for the double value for not setting forth the Tithes and the Defendant surmize That he did set them forth and that they would not there allow or admit the proof thereof by one Witness no Prohibition lies for that because they have the cognizance of the matter In this case the Prohibition was denied per Curiam 27. If the Bounds of a Village in a Parish come in question in the Ecclesiastical Court in a Suit between the Parson Impropriate and the Vicar of the same Parish as if the Vicar claim all the Tithes within the Village of D. within the Parish and the Parson all the Tithes in the residue of the Parish and the question between them is Whether certain Lands whereof the Vicar claims the Tithe be within the Village of D. or not yet inasmuch as it is between Spiritual persons viz. between the Parson and the Vicar although the Parson be a Lay-man and the Parsonage appropriate a Lay-see yet it shall be tried in the Ecclesiastical Court and no Prohibition be granted And in this case the Prohibition was denied 28. Where Suit hath been in the Ecclesiastical Court for something Spiritual mixt with other matter Triable at Common Law In such case a Prohibition hath been granted as to the matter Triable by the Common Law and not as to the rest if they may be severed As if a Suit be in the Ecclesiastical Court to avoid the Institution of one is Instituted to A. his Chappel of Ease as he pretends if the other suggest That A. is a Parochial Church of it self a Prohibition lies as to a Trial whether it be a Parochial Church of it self or not for that they shall not try the Bounds of the Parish but not as to a Trial concerning the Institution for that belongs to the Ecclesiastical Court to examine whether it be well done or not But Houghton said they cannot well try the Institution without trying the Bounds of the Parish If a Testament be made of Lands and Goods and there be a Suit in the Ecclesiastical Court for the Goods and the question be whether the Testator did revoke his Will in his life time or not a Prohibition lies as to the Land and not as to the Goods So if a man sues for the Probat of a Testament in the Ecclesiastical Court and in the Testament there be Lands devised and other personal Goods a Prohibition lies as to the Land but not as to the rest Upon an Allegation in such case That the Devisor revoked his Will before his death a Prohibition was granted as to the Land 29. If a man be sued out of his Diocess and there Answers without taking Exception thereunto and afterwards Sentence be given against him he shall not after have a Prohibition for that he did not take Exception to the Jurisdiction before but affirmed the Jurisdiction In this case Prohibition hath been denied If it appears in the Libel that the Court hath not Jurisdiction of the cause a Prohibition lies after Sentence but otherwise it is if it doth not so appear in the Libel but by averment Generally if a Suit be in the Ecclesiastical Court and Sentence there given for the Plaintiff and thereupon the Defendant Appeals and after pray a Prohibition no Prohibition is to be granted although if he had come before Sentence it ought to have been granted for that it is inconvenient after so much Expence and no Exception taken to the Jurisdiction then to grant a Prohibition Where a man by intendment shall have remedy by Appeal no Prohibition lies And therefore if a man devise a Legacy to B. to be paid him within one year after his death Provided that if he die within the year that then the Legacy shall be void and shall be divided between D. and E. and after B. die within the year and his Executor sue for the Legacy and Sentence given for him for that they there held the Condition to be void yet no Prohibition lies for that by intendment he hath his remedy by Appeal and in this case a Prohibition was denied If a man hath a Prohibition on a Libel for Tithes of Faggots on a Suggestion that the Faggots were made of great Trees above twenty years growth and in the Suggestion the quantity of
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
for the avoiding of Leases made by a Parson by his Absence from his Living by the space of eighty daies in one year and also shews that one Stallowe who was Parson of Sharrington to whom these Tithes did belong and in whose Right the Defendant claimed them was Absent from his Parsonage by the space of eighty daies in one year and shews in what year and so by this his interest determined and Agreement with the Plaintiff by this made void but they found further as the Plaintiff made it to appear That Stallowe the Parson of Sharrington was not Absent in manner as it was alledged for that they found that he did dwell in another Town adjoyning but that he came constantly to his Parish-Church and there read Divine Service and so went away again They did also find hat he had a Parsonage-house in Sharrington fit for his habitation and whether this were an Absence within the Statute as to avoid his Lease they left that to the Judgment of the Court Yelverton Justice This is a good Non-Residency within the Statute of 21 H. 8. cap. 13. but not an Absence to avoid a Lease made within the Statute of 13 Eliz. cap. 20. It cannot be said here in this Case that he was Absent for he came four daies in every week and in his Parish-Church did read Divine Service Williams Justice upon the Statute of 13 and 14 Eliz the Parson ought not to be Absent from his Church eighty daies together in one year à Rectoria sua but this is not so here for he came to his Church and read Divine Service there every Sunday Wednesday Friday and Saturday and therefore clearly this cannot be such an Absence within the scope and intention of these Statutes as thereby to avoid his Lease Yelverton Justice he ought to be Absent eighty daies together per spatium de Octogin diebus ultra and this to be altogether at one time and so the same ought to have been laid expresly the which is not so done here for that it appears here that he was at his Parsonage-house and did read Prayers every Sunday Wednesday Friday and Saturday and so the whole Court were clear of Opinion that this Absence here as the same appeared to be was not such an Absence by the space of eighty daies in one year to avoid his Lease within the said Statute and so the Defendants Plea in Barr not good and therefore by the Rule of the Court Judgment was entered for the Plaintiff 17. An Information was Exhibited against Two Parsons by J. S. upon the Statute of 21 H. 8. cap. 13. against one of them for Non-Residency and against the other for taking of a Farm the one of them pleaded Sickness and that by the Advice of his Physicians he removed into better Air for Recovery of his health and this is justifiable by the whole Court vid. more for this Coke 6. par fo 21. in Butler and Goodall's Case The other pleaded That he took the Farm for the maintenance of his House and Family And this also is justifiable by the Opinion of the whole Court Crooke moved the Court for the Defendants That the Plaintiff was a Common Informer and that he did prefer this Information against them only for their vexation and so to draw them to compound with him as formerly he hath so done by others for which they prosecuted an Indictment in the Countrey upon the Statute of 18 Eliz. cap. 5. made to punish Common Informers for their Abuses The whole Court did advise them to prosecute this Indictment against him Crooke moved for the Defendants That in regard the Informer is a man of no means that the Court would order him to put in sufficient Sureties to answer Costs if the matter went against him and that then the Defendants would presently answer the Information Williams Justice nullam habemus talem legem this is not to be done but the Rule of the Court was That the Defendants should not answer the Information until the Informer appeared in person 18. In an Action of Covenant the Plaintiff in his Declaration sets forth that the Defendant was Parson of D. and did Covenant That the Plaintiff should have his Tithes of certain Lands for thirteen years and that afterwards he Resigned and another Parson Inducted by which means he was ousted of his Tithes and for this cause the Action brought The Defendant pleads in Barr the Statutes of 13 Eliz. cap. 20. and 14 Eliz. cap. 11. for Non-Residency upon which Plea the Plaintiff demurr'd in Law It was urged for the Plaintiff That the Plea in Barr was not good because it is not averred that the Defendant had been Absent from his Parsonage by the space of Eighty daies in a year for otherwise the Covenant is not void by the Statutes For the Defendant it was alledged That the pleading of the Statute of 13 Eliz. is idle but by the Statute of 14 Eliz. this Covenant is made void for by the Statute all Covenants shall be all one with Leases made by such Parsons And in this case if this had been a Lease this had been clearly void by Surrender of the Parson and so in case of a Covenant Doderidge and Houghton Justices The Statutes of 13 and 14 Eliz. do not meddle with Assurances at the Common Law nor intended to make any Leases void which were void at the Common Law and therefore this Covenant here is not made void by the Statute unless he be Absent Eighty daies from his Parsonage Coke Chief Justice agreed with them herein They all agreed in this Case for the Plaintiff and that by the Preamble of 14 Eliz. it is shewed the intent of the Statute to be to make Covenants void within the Provision of 13 Eliz. by Absence for Eighty daies And Judgment in this Case was given for the Plaintiff CHAP. XXIX Of Abbots and Abbies also of Chauntries and of the Court of Augmentations 1. Abbot what why so called the several kinds thereof and how many anciently in England 2. A famous Abbot anciently in Ireland The manner of their Election prescribed by the Emperour Justinian Anciently the Peers of France were frequently Abbots 3. The ancient Law of King Knute concerning Abbots 4. The Abbot with the Monks making a Covent were a Corporation 5. Abbots were either Elective or Presentative they were Lords of Parliament How many Abbies in England and which the most Ancient Founded by King Ethelbert 6. Chaunter and Chauntries what and whence so called their use and end 47 belonging anciently to St. Pauls in London when and by what Laws their Revenues were vested in the Crown 7. Before King John's time Abbots and Priors were Presentative afterwards Elective 8. Six Differences taken and Resolved in a Case at Law touching Chauntries 9. Certain Cases in Law touching Lands whether under pretence of Chauntries given by the Statute to the King or not 10. What the Court of Augmentations was the end
alter not the Prescription And he cited a Cause which was in this Court argued at Barr and afterwards at Bench between Cooper and Andrews Mich. 10 Jac. Rot. 1023. for the Park of Cowhurst Vid. 32 E. 1. Fitz. Avowry 240. 5 E. 2. Fitz. Annuity 44. 20 E. 4. 14. 14 E. 4. 4. But this Case was adjudged for the Plaintiff Quod stet Prohibitio and that which is by the name of Park is for the Land and is annexed to the Land by the name of Park if the Prescription had been to pay a Buck or a Doe out of the Park then it would alter the Case But it is general and had been paid also after the Park disparked And the Case of Cooper and Andrews was a shoulder of every third Deer that was killed in the Park and two shillings in money and that Case was never Adjudged 32. V. brought Trespass against T. Clerk Vicar of A. for taking Bona Catalla and count for the taking of two Carectac glaci Anglicè Wood And upon Not guilty pleaded the Jury gave this Special Verdict viz. for the Moity of a Load of Wood Si videbitur Curiae quod Decimae glaci ne sunt Minutae Decimae then the Defendant Not guilty but Si sunt Minutae Decimae then he is Guilty This Case was argued at Barr by Bridgman and Henden Serjeants And the Court Vnement agreed That for ought that here appears this Verdict being found without any Circumstance that this Wood shall be taken to be Minutae Decimae It was agreed by Henden That if it had been found Wood growing in a Garden then Minutae Decimae And it was agreed by the Court That it might have been so found that it should be Majores Decimae and Praedial as if all the profits of the Parsonage consist of such Tithes And so of other things which in their own nature are Minutae may become Majores if all the profit of the Parish consist therein As in some Countries a great part of the Land within the Parish is Hemp or Lime or Hâ—ps there they are Great Tithes and so it may be of Wool and Lambs Pasch 3 Jac. B. R. in Beddingfield's Case Farmer to the Dean and Chapter of Norwich who had the Parsonage Impropriate and had used to have Tithes of Grain and Hay and the Vicar had the Small Tithes And a Field of 40 Acres was planted with Saffron and it was Adjudged That the Tithes thereof belong to the Vicar There was a Case in this Court as it was vouched by Henden 3 Jac. between Potman a Knight and another And the Question was for Hops in Kent and Adjudged that they were great Tithes but as for Hops in Orchards or Gardens these were Resolved to belong to the Vicar â—s small Tithes There was a Case in this Court for Tithe of Weild which is used for Dying and that was in Kent and it was sown with the Corn and after the Corn is reaped the next year without any other manurance the said Land brings forth and produces Weild And that was a Special Verdict whether the Vicar shall have the Tithe of it or the Parson but one of the parties died before any Judgment And if Tobacco be planted here yet the Tithes thereof are Minutae Decimae And all these new things viz. Saffron Hops Weild c. if it doth not appear by material Circumstances to the contrary shall be taken as Minutae Decimae And so this Case was Adjudged for the Defendant 33. In the Case of a Prohibition in case of a Libel in the Ecclesiastical Court for the Tithes of Cattels the Plaintiff alledged that those Cattel of which Tithes were demanded are for his Dairy and for the Plough and Winch being only present said That the Parson shall not have Tithes of such Cattel but if he breed up Cattel to sell it is otherwise Secondly the Plaintiff in the Prohibition alledged That time beyond memory the Parishioners had paid a halâ—â—â—â—or the Tithe of a Calf and a peny for a Cow and that upon a day limited they use to bring this to the Church and to pay this to the Vicar and now the Vicar had Libelled in the Ecclesiastical Court against them to compel them to bring it home to his housâ— And Winch said That this is no occasion of a Prohibition for they agree in the Mâ—dus but vary in the place of payment and this is not matter of substance and for that reason no Prohibition will lie 34. B. brought a Prohibition against C. and alledged that the Dean and Chapter of D. was seized of the Mannor and the Defendant being Vicâ—r sued in the Ecclesiastical Court to have Tithes and shewed that time beyond Memory c. they had held that Discharged of Tithes for them and their Tenants and that they lett that to the Plaintiff And it was moved by Henden Serjeant That the Dean and Chapter are a Body Politick and Temporal which are not capable of this Prescription in non Decimando Coke 2. the Bishop of Winchester's Case Hobart said That the Dean and Chapter are a Body Spiritual and are annexed to the Bishop throughout all England and if the Bishop is capable of that as it is plain he is then the Dean and Chapter is also capable of that which was granted by Hutton but Winch doubted for he said That he-may be a Lay-man and for that the Plaintiff ought to averr That he is a Spiritual person Hutton confessed That the Dean may be a Lay-man as was the Dean of Durham by special License and Dispensation of the King but that is rare and a Special Case and is not common and general and therefore not to be brought as an Example which was also granted by Hobart Chief Justice and upon that day was given over to the Defendant to shew cause wherefore the Prohibition shall not be granted 35. A. Libelled against W. in the Ecclesiastical Court for the Herbâ—ge-Tithe of young Cattel sâ—il for a peny for every one And Hitcham moved for a Prohibition and said that he ought not to have Tithes if they are young Beasts brought up for the Cart or Plough And so it hath been Adjudged As it a Parson prescribe to have Tithes for Hedgingstuff he cannot because that preserves the Land out of which he had Tithes and then a Parson Libels for Tithes of an Orchard for that it was a young Orchard and the Custome of the place was to pay 4 d. for an Orchard Hitcham said There is not any such difference between old and new Orchards for iâ— the Custome be that he shall pay 4 d. for every Orchard it will reach to the new Orchard And then he Libels for a Hearth-peny for the Wood burnt in his house Hutten said The Hearth-peny is more doubtful for it is a Custome in the North parts to give an Hearth-peny for Estovers burnt for
the different conditions of the persons of whom they were begotten As when they were begotten by persons of a single and unmarried Estate and of such as were kept as Concubines the Civil Law called them Filii Naturales if begotten of single Women not design'd for Concubines for satisfaction of present Lust then they were called Spurii if begotten of such as the Law styles Scorta or common Harlots by publick profession than they were called Manzeres if begotten of Married Women then they were called Nothi if begotten between Ascendents and Descendents or between Collaterals contrary to the Divine prohibition then they are called Incestuosi 6. Bastardy so stains the Blood that the Bastard can challenge neither Honour nor Arms and so disables him that he cannot pretend to any succession to inheritance The Temporal and the Ecclesiastical Laws with us do not differ as to matter of Bastardy but something as to the prosecution thereof The Ecclesiastical Law brings it two ways to Judgment Incidently and Principally the Common Law makes two sorts thereof General and Special Incidently at the Ecclesiastical Law when it is pleaded in Bar to a claim of something in right of Nativity Principally when by reason of some slanderous and reproachful speeches it is brought before the Court as the principal matter in Judgment to be alledged and proved that thereupon Sentence may be pronounced accordingly by the Ecclesiastical Judge Ad Curiam enim Regiam non pertinet agnoscere de Bastardia General Bastardy at Common Law is so called because it is in gross objected in Barr against a Man to disappoint him in the Principal matter of his Suit Which because it is of Ecclesiastical Cognizance is sent by the Kings Writ to the Ordinary to enquire whether the Party charged with Bastardy were born in or out of Lawful Matrimony And as the Ordinary finds the truth of the matter upon due examination so he pronounceth accordingly in his Consistory whereof he returns Certificate to the Temporal Courts Special Bastardy at the Common Law seems to be only that where the Matrimony is confest but the Priority or Posteriority of the Nativity of him whose Birth is in question is controverted General Bastardy ought to be Tryed by the Bishop and not by the Country But Bastardy in this sense cannot be tryed by the Ordinary otherwise than by vertue of the Kings Writ on some Suit depending in the Temporal Court When Issue is joyn'd on Bastardy before it be awarded to the Ordinary to Try it Proclamation thereof is made in the same Court and after Issue it is certified into Chancery where Proclamation is made once a Month for three Months and then the Lord Chancellour certifies it to the Court where the Plea is depending and after it is Proclaimed again in the same Court that all such whom the said Plea concerns may appear and make their Allegations before the Ordinary whose Certificate of Bastardy is nothing to the purpose unless it come in by Process at the Suit of the Parties And this Bastardy ought to be certified under the Seal of the Ordinary for it is not sufficient to certifie it under the Seal of the Commissary And although the Defendant be certified a Bastard by the Ordinary yet the Certificate shall lose its force if the Plaintiff be afterwards Nonsuit for then the Certificate is not of Record In the Case of Elborough against Allen it was said by Crook that for calling one Bastard generally there is not any sufficient Ground of Action at the Common Law but if there be any special Loss thereby it shall be a good ground of Action at the Comon Law as if a Man be upon Marriage or in treaty for the sale of Land whereby his Title is disparaged Doderidge Justice said That the word Bastard is generally of another Jurisdiction and belongs to the Ecclesiastical Court to determine what shall be Bastardy and their Judgement is given for the damage which the party had in his birth and for that their Entry is quia laesis est natalitiis And in this Case the Chief Justice said that generally to say J. S. is a Bastard J. S. hath not cause of Action given him thereby but if there be a Temporal cause averr'd the Common Law may proceed therein for though Originally Bastardy be of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction not Triable at the Common Law and therefore as in its general nature it is of the Spiritual Jurisdiction so being by its generality no ground of Action at the Common Law yet if one be to sue for a Childs part or sue for the Administration of his Fathers Goods and this be set forth in the Declaration it will maintain an Action at Common Law Doderidge Justice said That to say generally that one called him Bastard is not ground of Action if he doth not shew some special Loss thereby as when a Woman brings her Action and says that she was in Treaty of Marriage and that the Defendant called her Whore this will not maintain an Action unless she say withall that by reason of these words she lost her preferment but Chamberlain Justice said to call a Woman Whore is at this day a sufficient cause of Action for her for that it is punishable by the Statute he also further said that if a Man Libel in the Ecclesiastical Court that he hath Lands by descent and that J. S. call'd him Bastard they may not proceed there or if they do a Prohibition lies He further said that for calling a Man Bastard generally without special Loss alledged Action shall be maintained and Cited a Case in 6 Eliz. Dyer Where a Man recovered red great Dammages for that the Defendant had said that his Father was a Bastard And cited also one Nelson and Stokes Case in 5 Jac. where the Plaintiff did not alledge any special cause of Action and yet recovered 7. By the Civil Law such as were born in the beginning of the eleventh Month next after the decease of their Mothers Husband were to be accounted legitimate but such as were born in the end thereof were to be accounted Bastards Auth. Col. 4. yet the Gloss there relates a matter of Fact contrary to this Law and gives us an instance of a Widow in Paris who was delivered of a Child the fourteenth Month after her Husbands death yet the good repute of this Womans continency prevailed so much against the Letter of the Law that the Court Judg'd the causes of Child-birth to be sometimes extraordinary the Woman to be chast and the Child Legitimate Hoc tamen in exemplum trahi facile non oportet as the Gloss there concludes 8. By the Common Law if a Child be born but an hour after the solemnization of Marriage it shall be the Husbands though it were begotten by another Man who was not the Mothers Husband and may be the Heir of him who Married the Mother but a Day
the best Analogy with the truth comparing one Antiquary with another touching that Subject This Radulphus de Diceto was Dean of London a very Ancient Historian he wrote the History of England from A. 1147. to 1193. in a Book Entituled Imagines Historiarum and in the Prologue to his Chronicle Abbreviations says That Augustine who by Pope Gregory was sent into England An. 600. after he had Converted Ethelbert King of Kent to the Christian Faith went in the year 602. to Arles where he was Consecrated Episcopus Anglorum by Etherius Archbishop of that place and being returned into Britain sent Laurentius the Presbyter and Petrus the Monk to Pope Gregory giving him an account of Britains being converted to the Faith and himself made Bishop thereof Whereupon the said Gregory sent them back into England and with them several Divines to preach the Gospel in this Isle among which the Chief were Mellitus Justus Paulinus and Ruffinianus by whom he also sent the Pall to Augustine and at the same time wrote him in what manner he should Constitute Bishops in England and that in haec verba viz. Per locos singulos 12 Episcopos ordines qui tuae subjaceant ditioni◠quatenus Lundoniensis Civitatis Episcopus semper in posterum à Synodo propria debeat Consecrari c. Ad Eboricum vero Civitatem te volumus Episcopum mittere quem ipse judicaveris Ordinare Ita duntaxat ut si eadem Civitas cum finitimis locis Verhum Dei receperit ipse quoque 12. Episcopos ordinet Metropolitani honore fruatur Quem tamen tuae Fraternitatis volumus dispositioni subjacere Post obitum vero tuum ita Episcopus quos ordinaverit praesit ut Lundoniensis Episcopi nullo modo ditioni subjaceat Sit vero inter Lundoni Eboricae Civitatis Episcopos in posterum honoris ista Distinctio ut ipse prior habeatur qui prius fuerit Ordinatus Tua vero Fraternitas Episcopos quos ordinaveris qui vel per Episcopum Eboracae fuerint Ordinati Sacerdotes etiam totius Britanniae Subjectos habeat After the receipt of these Orders from Pope Gregory the Bishops of Britain were conven'd to a Conference by Augustine he having first Ordained the said Laurentius as his Suffragan the said Mellitus Bishop of London and the said Justus Bishop of Rochester About which time King Ethelbert built St. Pauls Church London or re-edified the same About this time also it was viz. An. 608. that Pope Boniface obtain'd of the Emperour Phocas That the Church of Rome should be the Head of all other Churches That of Constantinople having till then assumed that Title the which was after Decreed sub Anathemate in a Council of 62 Bishops Afterwards the the said Laurentius Mellitus and Justus became Archbishops of Canterbury successively viz. Laurentius in An. 615. Mellitus in An. 622. and Justus in An. 626. according to the computation of the said Radulphus by the last of which Paulinus was Ordained Archbishop of York and to which Justus Pope Boniface wrote in haec verba viz. Authoritati beati Petri praecipientes firmamus ut in Dorobernia Civitate semper in posterum Metropolitanus totius Britanniae locus habeatur omnesque Provinciae Regni Anglorum praefati loci Metropolitanae Ecclesiae subjiciantur Again the precedency of the See of Canterbury is recorded by the said Rodolphus in these words viz. Sicut Cantia subjicitur Romae quod ex ea fidem accepit ita Eboricum subjicitur Cantuariae quae eo Praedicatores misit Sicut igitur sedes Cantuariae prima fuit in fide prima sit in honore After Justus Honorius was made Archbishop of Canterbury whom Paulinus consecrated at Lincoln to whom Honorius Pope wrote in haec verba viz. Cum Dorobernensis Antistes vel Eboracensis de hac vita transierit is qui superest habeat potestatem alterum ordinandi Bed lib. 2. cap. 16. Si de Consecrationibus Archiepiscoporum Cantuar. contrarium aliquid inveneris in Authentico Libro quam in hoc volumine reperiatur adquiescam in omnibus And in the year 632. Pope Honorius wrote unto Honorius Archbishop of Canterbury in these words viz. Tuae Jurisdictioni subjici praecipimus omnes Angliae Ecclesias Regiones ut in Civitate Dorobernia Metropolitanus Locus honor Archiepiscopatus Caput omnium Ecclesiarum Anglorum semper in posterum servetur That the Archiepiscopal Seat at York is likewise of very great Antiquity is evident by what is forementioned touching Paulinus Archbishop thereof above one Thousand years since Our Learned Antiquary tells us Ex Patriis Scriptoribus That York was adorned with an Episcopal Seat by Constantius But if so or if that be the truth which is recorded of Paulinus aforesaid how then could Faganus sent hither by Pope Eleut herius to King Lucius to plant the Christian Religion be as reported the first Archbishop thereof or how could King Lucius place there one Theodosius which yet is also affirmed Or how could Sampson under the same King be Bishop of York as appears by Godwin who yet suspects it in regard that at the first entertainment of Christianity among us nor Hebrew nor Greek Names of the New Testament were so rise among the Britains and indeed this Sampson is more generally reserved to some Ages after till King Arthurs time Thus the Original of things as aforesaid seems full of obscurity and uncertainty yet it is most probable that the first Bishop of York was not till Constantines days and we shall find this Bishop at Arles in the Council there held about the year 314. whither as himself writes in his Epistle to Chrestus Bishop of Syracuse he summoned to hear the Cause of the Donatists many Bishops from divers places In the last Edition of this Council published by Jacobus Sirmondus at Paris among other Subscriptions thereunto you have out of Britain these following viz. Eborius Episcopus de Civitate Eboracensi Provincia Britannia Restitutus Episcopus de Civitate Londinensi Provincia superscripta Adelphus Episcopus de Civitate Colonia Londinensium exinde Sacerdos Presbyter Arminius Diaconus From which Council at Arles it may be observed 1 That York was no Archbishoprick at that time as neithet indeed was Rome it self 2 That Eborius Bishop of York at this Council takes place of Restitutus Bishop of London where as some suppose the Primacy alwaies remained till translated to Canterbury Whether Constantine the Great who is supposed to have adorned York with an Episcopal Seat as aforesaid were Born there and not elsewhere as some conceive is not easily at least not expresly proved out of the Ancients says a Learned Antiquary of Late times yet says he That Authority seems to be drawn from them which the Embassadours of England made use of and that in the hearing of the Learned World then both at the Council of Constance An. 1414. as also at that of Basil An. 1431. At the Council of
Plurality of Benefices is there forbidden as a vice smelling of Avarice and Ambition dangerous and prejudicial to the People whose Souls are neglected by such Pastours One of the chiefest Reasons why the Law forbids Pluralities is because it enjoyns Residence both which are inconsistent in the same Incumbent Aquinas says That the having of Two Benefices is not intrinsecally evil or Malum in se nor that it is altogether indifferent but carries in it a species of Evil yet so as that upon due Circumstances it may be capable of a qualified lawfulness Aquin. quod-lib 9. art 15. To the many Inconveniencies which the Law doth specifically observe to follow upon Pluralities this may not impertinently be added That thereby the pious Intention of Founders is frustrated The Council of Trent hath these words of it Haec Pluralitas est perversio totius Ordinis Ecclesiastici Concil Trid. Sess 24. cap. 17. Pope Alexander the Third said That Pluralitas Beneficiorum certum continet animarum periculum c. Quia in tantum 7. de Praebend The Canonists speaking of this Subject in reference to Dispensations to salve the matter if possible and bring both ends together have found out a very prety distinction of Beneficia Incompatabilia primi generis and Incompatabilia secundi generis But we are not concern'd in that Distinction In that Council of Trent it was said by the Bishop of Bitonto That Plurality of Benefices unknown to the First Ages was not brought in by the Court of Rome but by Bishops and Princes before the Popes took upon them to regulate the matter of Benefices throughout all Christendom Yet the Author of the History of the said Council of Trent lib. 2. says That Clement the Seventh Commended to this Nephew Hippolitus Cardinal de Medicis in the year 1534. all the Benefices of the world Secular and Regular Dignities and Parsonages Simple and with Cure being vacant for Six months to begin from the first day of his possession with power to convert all the Profits thereof to his own use The waies whereby an Ecclesiastical Benefice may be acquired are not many but the Causes for which an Ecclesiastical person may thereof be Deprived are very many generally they may all be reduced to these Three Heads 1 By the Disposition of the Law 2 By the Sentence of the Judge or 3 By a free and voluntary Resignation which though it be not properly a Deprivation yet it is an amission of the Benefiee Deprivation by the disposition of the Law is either by reason of some Crime whereunto the penalty of Deprivation ipso facto is by the Law annexed or by reason of accepting another Benefice Incompatible The Pontifical Law adds Two more which do not concern us viz. Ingress into Religion and Matrimony The Crimes that incurr Deprivation are many but they must be proved for the Beneficed party is not bound sponte sua to quit his Benefice ante Sententiam Judicis Less de Benefic cap. 29. Dub. 8. And when a man is not Jure Privatus but only Privandus in that case his Benefice cannot be bestowed on another unless a Privative Sentence be first pronounced by the Judge If a person Beneficed be long absent and Non-resident from his Benefice the Benefice is not by reason of such long Absence void ipso Jure but the Law in that case also requires a Judicial Sentence of Deprivation and that only post trinae Citationis in eorum Ecclesiis publice Edictum Gloss in c. Quoniam ut lite non contestata c. One of the chiefest Reasons in Law why Pluralities are prohibited is for the prevention of Non-residence as appears by the Third Canon of the Lateran Council which Canon after it prohibits the having of divers Ecclesiastical Dignities or more Parochial Churches than one it makes provision against Non-Residence in these words viz. Cum igitur vel Ecclesia vel Ecclesiasticum Ministerium committi debuerit talis ad hoc persona quaeratur quae Residere in loco curam ejus per seipsum valeat exercere Quod si aliter Actum fuerit qui receperit quod contra Sacros Canones acceperit amittat qui dederit largiendi potestate privetur Likewise by the Thirteenth Canon of that great Council of One hundred and eighty Bishops Assembled at Rome by Pope Alexander the Third in the year of our Lord 1180. it was Ordained That such persons should be preferr'd to Ecclesiastical Dignities as shall be actually resident with their people and undertake the Cure of their Souls by doing the work of their Ministry in their own persons otherwise to deprive them of the Office and Benefice conferred on them and they who do conferr them without these Conditions let them lose the right of conferring Offices and Benefices By this appears how strict and exact the Law is against Non-Residence in the Romish Church One of the most famous Abbots and Monasteries in Britain anciently seems to be that of Bangor in Flintshire whereof Ranulphus Cestrensis says that Tradunt nonnulli Pelagium fuisse Abbatem apud Famosum illud Monasterium de Bangor This Monastery which Ranulphus speaks of is by our Beda called Bamornabyrig lingua Anglorum in quo says he tantus fertur fuisse numerus Monachorum ut cum in Septem portiones esset cum Praepositis sibi Rectoribus Monasterium divisum nulla harum portio minus quam Trecentos homines haberet qui omnes de labore manuum suarum vivere solebant But concerning Abbots having nothing to do with them nor they with us it being also well known what once they were in this Kingdom and what now they are where the Pope doth exercise his Jurisdiction it may here suffice only to observe That the word Abbates hath anciently had a wide and far different signification from what we now commonly understand thereby for in and among the Laws of King Aethelstan we find the words quatuor Abbates to be taken according to the Glossographist thereon for quatuor hebdomadas That Law directs how and in what manner the Hundred Court shall be held the words are Hoc est judicium qualiter HUNDREDUM teneri debeat In primis ut conveniant semper ad quatuor ABBATES faciat omnis homo Rectum alii which the Glossary calls Locum plane mendosum and by the quatuor Abbates will have quatuor hebdomadas to be understood which is the more probable by what appears in one of the Laws of King Edward Father of the said Aethelstan who began his Reign in An. 901. being the Son of King Alured the words of which Law are Volo ut omnis praepositus habeat GEMOTUM semper ad QUATUOR EBDOMODAS efficiat ut omnis homo rectum habeat omne placitum capiat terminum quando perveniat ad finem By the word Gemotum in that place is meant Conventus Publicus Concilium but chiefly Placitum as appears by the 107th Law
any clandestine manner and in case any Parson should have a hand therein he was to be suspended ab Officio for the space of Three years Nullus Fidelis cujuscunque Conditionis sit occulte Nuptias faciat sed à Sacerdote publice nubat in Domino Si quis ergo Sacerdos aliquos occulte conjunxisse inventus fuerit triennio ab Officio suspendatur Can. 17. dict Concil It is Recorded by good Historians that Anciently in Ireland they were so far from Publishing these Banns before Marriage that they rejected all Matrimonial Laws whatever insomuch that Polygamy was very common amongst them until the Reign of King H. 2. who sent Nicholaus his Chaplain and Radulphus Archdeacon of Landaff into Ireland where at Cassell they held a great Council under Pope Alexander in which Council Three things were specially Ordain'd the one concerning Baptism to be In the Name of the Father Son c. for till then their Custome was to Dip the Child as soon as it was born three times in Water but if it were a Rich mans Child then in Milk Another concerning Tithes to be duly paid to Ecclesiastical Persons for till then many of them scarce knew whether Tithes ought to be paid or not And the third was concerning Marriage that it should be solemnized jure Ecclesiastico plerique enim says the Historian illorum quot uxores volebant tot habebant There was also a Fourth thing Decreed in that Council and that was concerning Testaments and distributions of the Goods and Chattel of persons deceased Chron. Jo. Bromt. de Temp. H. 2. Within the cognizance of the Episcopal or Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction are also all matters relating to the sin of Adultery the Bishops Jurisdiction herein is very Ancient as appears by the Laws of King Kanute made above 650 years since in Leg. 80. Si quis Sponsam Concubinam simul habuerit non faciat ei ' Presbyter aliquid rectitudinum quae Christiano fieri debent priusquam poeniteat ita emendet sicut Episcopus injunget Such Adultery is a kind of double Fornication according to the definition in the 75th of the same Laws Adulterium est si Sponsus cum vacua fornicetur multo pejus si cum sponsa alterius It was a strange and most cruel punishment that Philip Earl of Flanders in the time of King H. 2. caused to be executed on Walter de Fontibus taken as reported in Adultery with the Countess Isabella who commanded that he should be beaten to death with blows or strokes of Keys tyed up in bundles and being dead his Body to be hung by the Feet on a Fork with the Head downwards in a place prepared for that purpose there to remain ignominiously exposed to the view of all Spectators Radulph de Diceto Imag. Hist. The punishment of an Adulteress according to the foresaid Laws of King Kanute was much more favourable for by the 78th of those Laws she was to lose but her Nose and her Ears Si Mulier vivente Marito suo faciat Adulterium manifestetur c. ipsa perdat Nasum Aures But the Emperour Aurelian is said to have punished it in one of his Souldiers for committing it with his Hostess in a way of Cruelty little inferiour to that practised by the said Earl of Flanders for he commanded the heads of two Trees growing nigh together to be bowed down the Souldiers Legs to be fast tied thereunto then to be suddenly let go whereby he was torn in two parts the one hanging on the one Tree the other on the other and so to remain as a terrifying Spectacle to his Army Buc. Chron. Notwithstanding what was first abovesaid in reference to what Jurisdiction the cognizance hereof did anciently belong in the daies of King Kanute viz. That the Offender should make such satisfaction as the Bishops should enjoyn yet it is evident that after this viz. in the Conquerors time Fornication and Adultery were punishable in the Kings Temporal Court and the Leets especially by the name of Lecherwite and the Fines of Offenders assessed to the King though now it meerly belongs to the Church a President whereof we have in the Church of Corinth which by St. Pauls Command proceeded against the Incestuous person but as to a Rape there being force and violence in the case the Temporal Court and Common Law were there no Statute in the case hath the best Right to the trial and punishment thereof By the Conqueror's Laws the punishment of Adultery was only pecuniary Leg. 14. Qui Desponsatam alteri vitiaverit forisfaciat Weram suam Domino suo Yet in some cases it was Capital according to the said Conquerors Laws as in Leg. 37. Si Pater deprehenderit filiam in Adulterio in domo sua seu in domo generi sui bene licebit ei Oure lege for san Occire Occidere Adulterum Lambert de Priscis Angl. Legibus Forasmuch as Bastards and matters of Bastardy are within the cognizance of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction some notice is taken thereof in the next place of this Abridgment By Bastard we commonly understand prolem ex illicito concubitu procreatam The most Famous of this kind that we meet with in History and that concerns us was William the Conquerour of whom Simeon Monachus Dunelmensis in his History says That An. 1035. Obiit Robertus Dux Normandorum cui successit Willielmus Bastard filius ejus in puerili aetate Of whom also Radulphus de Diceto in suis Abbreviationibus Chronicorum on the year 1036. says That Obiit ROBERTUS Dux NORMANNIAE Frater Tertii RICHARDI ab JEROSOLIMIS rediens apud NICEAM Civitatem Cui successit WILLIELMUS BASTARD filius ejus in puerili aetate qui ANGLIAM postea conquisivit pater WILLIELMI Regis RUFI HENRICI It is frequent in History to find William the Conqueror Sirnam'd the Bastard nor did himself in the least disdain to style himself by that Addition for in his Epistle to Alanus Earl of Britannia Minor we find him thus styling himself Ego Willielmus cognomento Bastardus And no wonder says the Glossographer on the said Historians when the Title or Name of Bastard in those days was used by some as a mark of Honour the which he is the rather induced to believe for that vocis derivationem Kilianam amplectens scil a best-aerd that is optima indoles sive natura there is no cause of being ashamed thereof Illegitimo enim says he furtivo concubitu procreati animo plerunque sunt alacri elato ingenio sagaci judicio exacto hanc inquam vocis originationem potius probarem cum in caeteris nulla sit gloriandi causa By the Canon Law a Bastard is prohibited from taking Orders as also from having an Ecclesiastical Benefice c. 1. per tot De filiis Presbyt The said Prohibition is grounded by that Law on Deut. 23. Non i◠gredietur Manzer hoc est de
next in precedency hath been a Count Palatine about six or seven hundred years and hath at this day the Earldom of Sadberg long since annexed to this Bishoprick by the King Note a President hath been shewed at Common Law That the Bishop of Durham imprisoned one for a lay-Lay-Cause and the Archbishop of York as his Sovereign cited him to appear before him to answer for that Imprisonment and the Archbishop was fined four thousand Marks Cro. par 1. The Bishop of Winchester was anciently reputed Earl of Southampton All the other Bishops take place according to the Seniority of their Consecration unless any Bishop happen to be made Lord Chancellor Treasurer Privy Seal or Secretary of State which anciently was very usual All the Bishops of England are Barons and Peers of the Realm have place in the Upper house of Parliament as also in the Upper house of Convocation The Bishopricks were erected into Baronies by William the Conqueror at his coming into England And as a special remark of Honour Three Kings viz. of England Scotland and South-Wales in the year 1200. did contribute their Royal shoulders for the conveyance of the deceased Corps of Hugh Bishop of Lincoln to his Grave And no wonder when Princes themselves and such as were of the Blood Royal were anciently Bishops in this Kingdom they have been not only of the best Nobility but divers of the Sons and Brothers of several English Kings since the Conquest and before have entred into Holy Orders and became Ecclesiasticks as at this day is practicable in the most of all other Monarchies throughout the whole Christian World Ethelwolph Son and Successor to Egbert first Sole King of England was in Holy Orders and Bishop of Winchester at his Fathers death Odo Brother to William the Conqueror was Bishop of Bayeux in Normandy Henry de Blois Brother to King Stephen was Bishop of Winchester Geofry Plantagenet Son to King Henry the Second was Bishop of Lincoln And Henry de Beauford Brother to King Henry the Fourth was Bishop also of Winchester 20. The Statute of 17 Car. 1. cap. 27. for disinabling persons in Holy Orders to exercise Temporal Jurisdiction or Authority being Repealed as aforesaid by the Statute of 13 Car. 2. cap. 2. they are thereby restored to the exercise of Temporal Jurisdiction as formerly which indeed is no more than what they ever Anciently exercised in this Kingdom For Ex Clero Rex semper sibi eligebat Primos à Consiliis Primos ad Officia Regni obeunda Primi igitur sedebant in omnibus Regni Comitiis Tribunalibus Episcopi in Regali quidem Palatio cum Regni Magnatibus in Comitatu una cum Comite in Turno cum Vice-comite in Hundredo cum Domino Hundredi sic ut in promovenda Justitia usquequaque gladii gladium adjuvaret nihil inconsulto Sacerdote vel Episcopo ageretur This Union of Persons Authority and Courts of Judicature Ecclesiastical and Civil as Mr. Selden proves continued above Four thousand years till Pope Nicholas the First about the Eighth Century to exclude the Emperour from medling in the Ecclesiastical Government began to exclude the Clergy from medling with the Civil And for the space of four or five hundred years during the Reign of the Saxon Kings in England the Ecclesiastical and Secular Magistrates sate joyntly together determining Ecclesiastical Affairs in the Morning and Secular or Civil Affairs in the Afternoon so that in those days as there was no clashing of Jurisdictions so no complaint touching Prohibitions but an unanimous harmony in a kind of Joynt-Jurisdiction in reference to all Ecclesiastical and Civil Affairs until William the Conqueror did put a distinction between Church and State in a more divided way than formerly had been practiced Also the excellent Laws made by King Ina King Athelstan King Edmund and St. Edward the Confessor from whom we have our Common Laws and our Priviledges mentioned in Magna Charta were all made by the perswasions and advice of Archbishops and Bishops named in our Histories 21. That which during the Reign of King Edw. 6. made the greatest alteration and threatned most danger to the State Ecclesiastical was the Act entituled An Act for Election and what Seals and Styles shall be used by Spiritual persons c. In which it was ordained That Bishops should be made by the Kings Letters Patents and not by the Election of the Deans and Chapters That all their Processes and Writings should be made in the Kings Name only with the Bishop's Teste added to it and sealed with no other Seal than the Kings or such as should be Authorized and Appointed by him In the compounding of which Act there was more danger as Dr. Heylin observes couched than at first appeared For by the last Branch thereof it was plain and evident says he that the intent of the Contrivers was by degrees to weaken the Authority of the Episcopal Order by forcing them from their strong hold of Divine Institution and making them no other than the Kings Ministers only or as it were his Ecclesiastical Sheriffs to execute his Will and disperse his Mandates And of this Act such use was made though possibly beyond the true intention of it that as the said Dr. Heylin observes the Bishops of those Times were not in a Capacity of conferring Orders but as they were thereunto impowred by special License The Tenour whereof if Sanders be to be believed was in these words following viz. The King to such a Bishop Greeting Whereas all and all manner of Jurisdiction as well Ecclesiastical as Civil flows from the King as from the Supream Head of all the Body c. We therefore give and grant to thee full power and License to continue during our good pleasure for holding Ordination within thy Diocess of N. and for promoting fit persons unto Holy Orders even to that of the Priesthood Which being looked on by Queen Mary not only as a dangerous diminution of the Episcopal Power but as an odious Innovation in the Church of Christ she caused this Act to be Repealed in the first year of her Reign leaving the Bishops to depend on their former claim and to act all things which belonged to their Jurisdiction in their own Names and under their own Seals as in former times In which estate they have continued without any Legal Interruption from that time to this But says the same Author in the First Branch there was somewhat more than what appeared at the first sight For though it seemed to aim at nothing but that the Bishops should depend wholly on the King for their preferment to those great and eminent places yet the true drift of the Design was to make Deans and Chapters useless for the time to come and thereby to prepare them for a Dissolution For had nothing else been intended in it but that the King should have the sole Nomination of all the Bishops in his Kingdoms it had
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.
them offend in any of the Premisses the persons deputing them if they be Bishops shall upon Admonition of their Superiour discharge the persons exceeding the Number so limited as aforesaid But if they were deputed by Inferiour Ordinaries such Ordinaries shall be suspended from the execution of their Office until they have dismiss'd the supernumerary Apparitors by them so deputed and the parties themselves so deputed shall for ever be removed from the Office of Apparitors And in case being so dismiss'd and removed they do not desist from the execution of their said Offices they are by the first said Canon to be proceeded against and punished by Ecclesiastical Censures as persons contumacious to the Jurisdiction And finally if upon experience the number of the said Apparitors be too great in any one Diocess in the judgment of the Archbishop of Canterbury for the time being in that case he is by the said Canon impower'd to abridge them to such a number as to himself shall seem meet and expedient An Apparitor came to the Church of a Parson and said to him He is to pay Tenths to such a one at such a place four miles distant from the Church to whom the Parson did not pay them and thereupon the Bishop Certified That he refused to pay them according to the Statute of 26 H. 8. It was Resolved The Demand was not according to that Statute and the Summons to pay them not according to the Statute for the Demand ought to have been by one who hath authority to receive them which the Summoner had not And they held the Demand not good although the Bishop certified it was duly made And in the Case between the Queen and Blanch it was Resolved That the Certificate of the Bishop that the Incumbent refused to pay his Tenths is not Peremptory but Traversable and that the Demand of the Tenths must be at the house of the Incumbent and the Refusal there More 's Rep. 1225. In a Action upon the Case against the Defendant the Case was this A Summoner in the Ecclesiastical Court having a Citation against the Plaintiff Returned That he had Summoned the Plaintiff whereas in truth he never Summoned him for which the Plaintiff was Excommunicated to his great dammage It was adjudged that the Action did lie 13. By the Premisses it is manifest that the Canon is very strict and exact both in abridging the Number and redressing the Abuses incident to the Office of Apparitors which Canon in most Circumstances seems to run very parallel with that in the Provincial Constitutions Lindw Provin Constit de Censibus Procur cap. cum Apparitorum the light whereof did probably influence it into that Form wherein we now find it For by that Decree of the said Provincial Constitunions it is Ordained That a Bishop shall have unum Apparitorem Equitantem duntaxat where the Gloss well observes that by this non prohibetur Episcopo quin plures habeat pedites And every Archdeacon one in every Deanary non Equitantem sed peditem where the Bishop might also appoint Apparitors as also in Rural Deanaries Gloss ibid. verb. Duntaxat And in case more than these were Deputed or they found to offend in their Office the Penalty was as above-said Deputantes sint suspensi donec c. Deputatos ab Officio Apparitorum perpetuo suspendimus ipso facto Constit ibid. 14. Action upon the Case For that the Defendant being an Apparitor under the Bishop of Exeter maliciously and without colour or cause of suspicion of Incontinency of his own proper malice procured the Plaintiff Ex Officio upon pretence of Fame of Incontinency with one Edith whereas there was no such Fame not just cause of Suspicion to be cited to the Consistory Court of Exeter and there to be at great charges and vexation until he was cleared by Sentence which was to his great discredit and cause of great Expences and Losses for which c. upon Not guilty pleaded and found for the Plaintiff it was moved by Ashley Serjeant in Arrest of Judgment That in this Case an Action lies not For he did nothing but as an Informer and by virtue of his Office But all the Court absente Richardson held That the Action well lies For it is alledged That he falso malitiose caused him to be Cited upon pretence of Fame where there was no offence committed And avers That there was not any such Fame so as he did it maliciously and of his own head and caused him to be unjustly vexed which was to raise gain to himself whereupon they conceived That he being found guilty for it the Action well lies And therefore Rule was given to enter Judgment for the Plaintiff unless other cause was shewn And upon a second motion Richardson Ch. Justice being present Judgment was given for the Plaintiff The Consistory of the Bishop may in some Cases enjoyn Penance Where Penance is enjoyned there may be Commutation but there may not be Commutation for Penance where none is enjoyned Commutation for Penance agrees with the Customes used in the Ecclesiastical Law justified in the Common Law in the Statute of Circumspecte agatis in the time of Ed. 1. and Articuli Cleri in the time of Ed. 2. Vid. Mich. 21. Jac. B. R. Dr. Barker 's Case in Camera Stellata Roll's Rep. 15. Commissary Commissarius is a Title of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction adapted to such one as doth exercise the same in such remote places of the Diocess and at such distance from the Bishops chief Consistory as that his Chancellor cannot without too great a prejudice conveniently call the Subjects to the same The duty of such Commissary or Officialis Fâ—ranei is to officiate the Bishops Jurisdiction in the remoter parts of the Diocess or in such Parishes as are the Bishop's peculiar and exempt from the Archdeacon's Jurisdiction The Authority of the Commissaries of Bishops is only in some certain place of the Diocess and some certain causes of the Jurisdiction limited unto them by the Bishops for which reason the Law calls them Officiales Foraneos quasi Officiales astricti cuidam foro Dioeceseos tantum Gloss in Clem. de Rescript And by the Canons and Constitutions Ecclesiastical no person may be a Commissary or Official under the Age of 26 years being at least a Master of Arts or Bachelor of Law Yet in the Argument of Buries Case for a Divorce the 5 Rep. 98. there was cited 35 Eliz. B. R. rot 605. That if a Lay-man be made a Commissary by the Bishop it is good until it be undone by Sentence although that the Canon says That he ought to be a Doctor or a Bachelor of Divinity But 21 H. 8. hath limited That a Doctor of the Civil Law may be a Commissary 16. Where a Commissary citing many persons of several Parishes to appear at his Visitation-Court Excommunicated them for not Appearing a Prohibition was granted because the Ordinary hath not
power to cite any to that Court but the Church-Wardens and Sides-men and those he may Impannel and give Articles to them for to enquire as the Justices of Assize Vid. N. B. 41. 17. The Dean of the Deanary of Wolverhampton annexed to the Deanary of Windsor being a Peculiar and having Ordinary Jurisdiction makes a Commissary by his Deed which is Confirmed by the Chapter The Dean dies The question was if that was good to bind his Successor By Doderidge That such a Jurisdiction is Judicial and that Grant is but a Commission and Authority all times remaining in the Ordinary True it is That Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in Judicial Acts may be executed by a Substitute but in Law they are the Acts of them who Substitute the other Vid. 11 H. 4. 64. a. 7 E. 4. 14. 20 H. 6. 1. That a Commissary may Excommunicate and prove a Testament But that shall be made in the name of the Ordinary 20 E. 3. And a Grant of that by the Bishop is not good but during his life and shall not bind the Succâ—ssor For the Law hath appointed that he shall exercise that Jurisdiction Sede vacante c. The Grant being void cannot be made good by the Confirmation of the Chapter Coke Chief Justice If that should be a good grant to bind the Successor then the Successor cannot remove him And yet the Successor shall answer for the Acts and Offences of the Commissary which would be too hard 18. In Walker's Action upon the Case against Sir John Lambe For disturbance of the Plaintiff in exercising of the Officialty of the Archdeaconry of Leicester granted by the Archdeacon of Leicester and of the Office of Commissary of the Bishop of Lincoln Upon Not guilty pleaded a special Verdict was found That there were Ancient offices granted by c. and Offices of Judicature always granted to one person for life until 1609 and in 30 Eliz. so granted to Dr. Chippindale and after in 1609 granted to him and one Ed. Clerk for their Two lives no Surrender being actually made by Dr. Chippendale Afterwards 1614 both Offices were granted the one by the Archdeacon the other by the Bishop to Sir Jo. Lambe and to the said Ed. Clerk and these Grants confirmed by the Dean and Chapter That in An. 1622. Dr. Chippendale died and afterwards the Archdeacon who granted that Office and the Bishop who granted the Office of Commissary died and the Bishop of Lincolne who now is and the now Archdeacon by several Patents granted these Offices to the Plaintiff who was at the time of the Grant of the Patent a Lay-person and Bachelor of the Civil Law only And they find the Stat. of 37 H. 8. c. 17. That Lay-persons married or unmarried being Doctors of the Civil Law may be Commissaries Officials Scribes or Registers and that the Plaintiff exercised these Offices and the Defendant disturbed him Upon this the matter being argued at the Bar was reduced only to these Two Questions 1 Whether the Patent to the Plaintiff being a Lay-person and not a Doctor of the Law were good or restrained by the Statute of 37 H. 8. And as to that point all the Court conceived The Grant was good for the Statute doth not restrain any such Grant And it is but an affirmance of the Common Law where it was doubted if a Lay or Married person might have such Offices and to avoid such Doubts this Statute was made which explains That such Grants are good enough and it is but an Affirmative Statute and there is no restriction therein And although Doctors of the Law though Lay-persons or Married shall have such Offices yet this is not any restriction That none others shall have them but Doctors of the Law and the Statute mentions as well Registers and Scribes as Commissaries and that a Doctor of the Law shall have them yet in Common experience such persons as are meerly Lay and not Doctors have enjoyed such Offices And for this very point was a Case in this Court Hill 35 Eliz. Rot. 181. between Pratt and Stock where upon Demurrer this Statute was pleaded against the Plaintiff to whom a Commissaryship was granted being but a Bachelor of Law and he having granted Administration the Grant was adjudged good and the Book of Entries 484 489. was allowed good wherefore they Resolved the Grant was well enough And it was also Resolved That where an Officer for life accepts of another Grant of the same Office to him and to another it is not any Surrender of the first Grant The Second point was Whether the office of the Officialty of the Archdeaconry and the office of the Commissary of the Bishop be grantable by the Statutes of 1 Eliz. and 13 Eliz. because it was pretended they were not parcel of the Possessions of the Bishoprick or Archdeaconry so as they could have any profits by them and then the Statute doth not restrain the Grants of them But all the Court Resolved They were within the words and intent of the Statutes for they be Hereditaments and are pertaining unto them And that a Grant of these Offices to Two where they were only grantable to One for life and being granted in Reversion it is a void Grant by the Statutes against the Successors For the Statutes restrain all Grants of any thing to be avoidable against the Successor besides Grants of necessity and Leases for Three lives or 21 years where the ancient Rent is reserved And all other Grants as well of Offices as of other things not warranted by the Statutes are made void as against the Successors Vid. Coke 10. fo 60. the Bishop of Salisbury's Case Coke 5. fo 14. and a Case betwixt Vaughan and Crompton 14 Jac. at the Assizes before the Justices of the Assize for the Office of the Registership in Suffolk and between Johns and Powell for the Registers place of Hereford where it was Adjudged That such Offices granted in Reversion were void whereupon Rule was given That Judgment should be enter'd for the Plaintiff unless other cause were shewn And afterward being moved again Judgment was given for the Plaintiff 19. Noy Attorney Reports the foresaid Case of Dr. Sutton in this manner viz. That he was deprived of the office of Official of Gloucester by the Commissioners 3 Jac. appointed to examine the defects of Chancellors and that he was not read in the Canon or Civil Law He said That time out of mind c. the Bishops have used in their Diocesses to bestow the Chancellorship and that A. the Bishop of c. had made him Chancellor by Deed and that was Confirmed by the Dean and Chapter by which he had a Frank-tenement in that Office c. And Mr. Glanvile moved for a Prohibition but it was denied by the Court for it is lawful for the Commissioners to deprive for Insufficiency that being within their Commission But in a Suit in the Ecclesiastical Court for the Profits of that
Office supposing the Grant of that by the Predecessor does not bind the Successor as it was in Dr. Barker's Case there a Prohibition shall be awarded because the profits are Temporal But we in the first Case cannot try the Sufficiency Vid. 8 E. 3. 70. 9 E. 3. 11. So it is if the Ordinary deprive the Master of a Lay-Hospital for there he is not a Visitor nor is it Visitable by him But otherwise of a Spiritual Hospital 20. The Bishop of Landaff granted the office of his Chancellorship to Dr. Trevor and one Griffin to be exercised by them either joyntly or severally Dr. Trevor for 350 l. released all his Right in the said Office to Griffin so that G. was the sole Officer and then after died After this the Bishop grants the said Chancellorship to R. being a Practicioner in the Civil Law for his life Dr. Trevor surmising that himself was the sole Officer by Survivorship made Dr. Lloyd his Substitute to execute the said office for him and for that that he was disturbed by R. the said Dr. Trevor being Substitute to the Judge of the Arches granted an Inhibition to inhibite the said R. from executing the said Office The Libel contained That one R. hindered and disturbed Dr. Lloyd so that he could not execute the said Office Against these proceedings in the Arches a Prohibition was prayed and day given to Dr. Trevor to shew cause why it should not be granted They urged that the Office was Spiritual for which reason the discussing of the Right thereof appertaineth to the Ecclesiastical Courts But all the Judges agreed That though the Office was Spiritual as to the Exercising thereof yet as to the Right thereof it was Temporal and shall be tryed at the Common Law for the party hath a Freehold therein Vid. 4 5 P. M Dyer 152. 9. Hunt's Case for the Registers Office in the Admiralty and an Assize brought for that And so the Chief Justice said was Adjudged for the Registers Office to the Bishop of Norwich in B. R. between Skinner and Mingey which ought to be tryed at the Common Law And so Blackleech's Case as Warburton said in this Court for the office of Chancellor to the Bishop of Gloucester which was all one with the principal Case And they said That the office of Chancellor is within the Statute of Ed. 6. for buying of Offices c. And so in the manner of Tithing the Prescription is Temporal for which cause it shall be tryed at Common Law And Prohibition was granted according to the first Rule So that if a Bishop grant the office of Chancellorship to A. and B. and after A. release to B. and after B. die and after the Bishop grant it to R. against whom A. sues in the Ecclesiastical Court supposing his Release to be void a Prohibition will lie for that the office is Temporal as to the Right of it though the office be Exercised about Spiritual matters But if a Chancellor be sued in the Ecclesiastical Court to be deprived for Insufficiency as not having knowledge of the Canon Law no Prohibition lies for that they are there the proper Judges of his ability and not the Judges of the Common Law 21. In Dr. Trevor's Case who was Chancellor of a Bishop in Wales it was Resolved That the Offices of Chancellor and Register c. in Ecclesiastical Courts are within the Statute of 5 Ed. 6. cap. 16. which Act being made for avoiding Corruption of Officers c. and advancement of Worthy persons shall be expounded most beneficially to suppress Corruption And because it allows Ecclesiastical Courts to proceed in Blasphemy Heresie Schism c. Loyalty of Matrimonies Probat of Wills c. And that from these proceedings depends not only the Salvation of Souls but also the Legitimation of Issues c. and other things of great consequence It is more reason that such Officers shall be within the Statute than Officers which concern Temporal matters The Temporal Judge committing the Convict only to the Gaoler but the Spiritual Judge by Excommunication Diabolo And there is a Proviso in the Statute for them And it was Resolved That such Offices were within the Purview of the said Statute CHAP. XI Of Courts Ecclesiastical and their Jurisdiction 1. The Antiquity of the Ecclesiastical Laws of England and what the Chief Ecclesiastical Courts are in general anciently called Halimots The Original of the Popes Vsurpation in England 2. The Court of Convocation and Constitutions of Claringdon 3. The High Court of Arches why so called the highest Consistory the Jurisdiction thereof 4. The Judge of this Court whence called Dean of the Arches 5. The great Antiquity of this Court the Number of Advocates and Proctors thereof Anciently limited their decent Order in Court 6. The Prerogative Court of Canterbury 7. The Court of Audience to whom it belonged where kept and what matters it took cognizance of 8. The Court of Faculties why so called what things properly belong to this Court As Dispensations Licenses c. with the Original thereof in England 9 What the nature of a Dispensation is and who qualified to grant it 10. A Dean made Bishop the King may dispence with him to hold the Deanary with the Bishoprick by way of Commendam 11. Whether a Prohibition lies to the Ecclesiastical Courts in case they do not allow of Proof by one Witness 12. Divers Cases at the Common Law relating to Prohibitions to the Ecclesiastical Courts 13. The Court of Delegates 14. The High Commission Court what the Power thereof was 15. The Court of Review or Ad Revidendum 16. The Court of Peculiars 17. In what Cases the Ecclesiastical Court shall have Jurisdiction of matters Subsequent having Jurisdiction of the Original Suit 18. In what Case the party having allowed of the Jurisdiction comes too late to have a Prohibition 19. The difference between a Suit Ad instantiam partis and that ex Officio Judicis in reference to a General Pardon 20. Whether a Cleâ—k may strike his Servant or another in that case the Clerk and be blameless 21. What manner of Avoidance shall be tried at the Common Law and what in the Ecclesiastical Court 22. In what Case a special Prohibition was awarded in a Suit of Tithes after a Definitive Sentence 23. A Prohibition to the Ecclesiastical Court in a Suit grounded on a Custome against Law 24. Prohibition awarded to the Ecclesiastical Court upon refusal there to give a Copy of the Libel 25. Where the Ecclesiastical Court hath cognizance of the Principal they have also of the Accessory though the Accessory of matters Temporal 26. A Prohibition denied upon a Suggestion That the Ecclesiastical Court would not admit of proof by one Witness 27. In what case the Ecclesiastical Court shall have the Cognizance albeit the bounds of a Village in a Parish come in question 28. How the Practice hath been touching Prohibitions where the Subject matter
Form thereof according to the Canon Law what required of the Clerk in order thereto and his Remedy in case the Ordinary denies him such Institution as he may claim by Law 9. Matters of Institution properly cognizable in the Ecclesiastical Courts yet in certain Cases not exclusively to the Common Law or Temporal Jurisdiction 10. Institution gives the Parson jus ad rem not jus in re 11. Whether Institution without Induction works a Plenaâ—ty also whether it be good being Sealed with another Seal and done out of the proper Diocess The difference between the Common Law and the Canon Law as to a Coveat entered before Institution 12. Whether Suit may be in the Ecclesiastical Court to remove an Incumbent after Induction 13. Whether the First-Fruits be due upon the Institution before Induction 14. A Case at Common Law touching Resignation and whether it may be made Conditionally 15. A Case touching the Rightful Patron 's Presentation after the Induction of another by Vsurpation 16. What Induction is and the Bishop's Order therein 17. Induction is a Temporal not Spiritual Act In what manner it is to be executed 18. A Caveat entered in the Life-time of an Incumbent is void 19. In what Case an Induction made by a Minister not resident within the Archdeaconry may be good 20. Institution to a Minor and Vnder-age is meerly void 21. Whether after Induction the Institution may be questioned in the Ecclesiastical Court 22. Whether Incumbency be triable only at Common Law 23. In what Court the validity of Induction is determinable 1. EXamination is that Trial or Probation which the Bishop or Ordinary makes before his Admission of any person to holy Order or to a Benefice touching the qualification of such persons for the same respectively So that there are Two certain times or seasons especially wherein this Examination is required the one before an Admission to Holy Orders the other before an Admission to a Benefice The former of these is expresly enjoyned by the 35th Canon Ecclesiastical whereby it is required That the Bishop before he Admit any person to Holy Orders shall diligently Examine him in the presence of those Ministers that shall assist him at the Imposition of hands or in case of any lawful Impediment of the Bishop then the said Examination shall be carefully performed by the said Ministers provided they be of the Bishops Cathedral Church if conveniently it may otherwise by at least Three sufficient Preachers of the same Diocess And in case any Bishop or Suffragan shall Admit any to Sacred Orders who is not Examined as is before ordained then shall the Archbishop of the Province having notice thereof and being assisted with one Bishop suspend the said Bishop or Suffragan from making either Deacons or Priests for the space of Two years So also when the Clerk is Presented by the Patron of the Advowson before he be Admitted as Clerk to serve the Cure the Ordinary is to Examine him of his Ability For if upon his Examination he be found unable to serve the same or be Criminous the Ordinary may refuse to Admit and Institute him into the Benefice By the Ancient Cannons the Bishop hath Two months time to enquire and inform himself of the sufficiency and quality of every Clerk Presented to him as appears by the Canon in 1 Jac. cap. 95. But by the said Canon it is Ordained That the said Two months shall be abridged to 28 days only Upon sufficient enquiry and Examination the Ordinary may accept or refuse the Clerk Presented and regularly all such matters as are causes of Deprivation are also causes of Refusal but for a Presentce to have another Benefice is no cause of Refusal for that is at his own peril and possibly the Second Benefice is more worth than the former which only is void in such case 2. If the Bishop doth demand of the Clerk his Letters of Orders and Letters Testimonial of his good behaviour and the Clerk requires time to shew them as the space of a week or the like because he hath them not there with him and the Bishop doth thereupon Refuse him to the Church and Presents another the Bishop in such case hath been adjudged to be a Disturber for the Statute of 13 Eliz. doth not compel the Clerk to shew his Orders nor Letters Testimonial of his good Behaviour And so it was Adjudged Yet by the 39th Canon it is by way of Caution expresly Ordained That no Bishop shall Institute any of a Benefice who hath been Ordained by any other Bishop except he first shew unto him his Letters of Orders and bring him a sufficient Testimony of his former good life and behaviour if the Bishop shall require it 3. Examination of the Clerk is to be done at a convenient time within the Six months for the Ordinary cannot refuse to Examine the Clerk during all the Six months and so suffer a Lapse to incurr to himself for by so doing the Patron should lose his Presentation and the Ordinary take advantage of his own wrong But if the Ordinary when the Clerk comes to be examined Sedet circa curam Pastoralem he is not then obliged to leave the business in hand and presently Examine the Clerk but he may appoint a convenient time and place for the Examining of him This Examination by the Diocesan touching the Conversation and Ability of such as were ordained to Peach the Word of God or Presented to a Benefice is enjoyned by the Provincial Constitutions Lindw de Haereticis cap. 1. 4. A Quare Impedit was brought by B. against the Bishop of Rochester who pleads that he claims nothing but as Ordinary and yet pleads further That the Clerk which the Plaintiff Presented had before contracted with the Plaintiff Simmiacally and therefore because he was Simoniacus he refused and that the Church was then void and so remained void whereupon the Plaintiff had a Writ to the Archbishop of Canterbury who returned that before the coming of this Writ viz. 4. July the Church was Full of one Dr. Grant ex Collatione of the said Bishop of Rochester who had Collated by Lapse and this Return was adjudged Insufficient First it is clear That though the Six months pass yet if the Patron Present the Bishop ought to Admit although it be after the Title devolved unto the Metropolitan And it seems also Reason that he ought to Admit though that the Title by Lapse be accrued to the King for he claims it as Supream Ordinary Vid. Dyer 277. quaere But in this Case the Bishop who is the Defendant is bound by the Judgment and the Writ is notwithstanding the claim of the Bishop that he Admit the Clerk for the Bishop ought to execute the Process of the Court It was urged by Serjeant Henden that there is a Canon in Lindwood That if the Church be vacant when the Writ comes to the Bishop that he is bound to execute
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
Conviction of Perjury in the Spiritual Court according to the Ecclesiastical Laws which although as aforesaid it be a just Cause of Deprivation must yet be signified by the Ordinary to the Patron so also must that Deprivation which is caused by an Incapacity of the party Instituted and Inducted for want of Holy Orders 3. By the Statute of 21 H. 8. if an Incumbent having a Benefice with Cure of Souls value 8 l. per ann take another with Cure immediately after Induction thereunto the former is void and void without any Declaratory Sentence of Deprivation in the Ecclesiastical Court in case the Second Benefice were taken without a Dispensation and of such Avoidance the Patron is to take notice at his peril And as Avoidance may be by Plurality of Benefices incompatible without Dispensation so also by not Subscribing unto and not reading the 39 Articles as aforesaid which by the Statute of 13 Eliz. c. 12. is a Deprivation ipso facto as if the Incumbent were naturally dead insomuch that upon such Avoidance there need not any Sentence Declaratory of his Deprivation but the very pleading and proof of his not Reading the said Articles is a sufficient Barr to his claim of Tithes without any mentioning at all his being deprived in the Ecclesiastical Court Yet Sir Simon Degge in his Parsons Counsellor putting the Question What shall be intended by the words Deprived ipso facto as whether the Church shall thereby immediately become void by the Fact done or not till Conviction or Sentence Declaratory modestly waives his own Opinion and says it is a Quaere made by Dyer what shall be intended by the words ipso facto Excommunicate for striking with a Weapon in the Church-yard albeit by the Canon Law which condemns no man before he be heard requiritur sententia Declatoria 4. Touching Deprivation by reason of Miscreancy the Cardinal who by the Bishop of Durham was Collated to a Benefice with Cure is it seems the standing President in which case it was Agreed that notwithstanding the Cardinal 's being deprived for his Miscreancy in the Court of Rome yet whether he were Miscreant or not should be tried in England by the Bishop of that Diocess where the Church was 5. Among the many Causes of Deprivation forementioned you do not find that of Marriage in the Priest which was anciently practicable as appears by what the Lord Coke reports touching an Incumbent in the time of King Ed. 6. who being Deprived in Queen Maries daies partly because he was a Married person and partly because of his Religion was restored again in the time of Queen Elizabeth In whose Case it was Adjudged That his Deprivation was good until it was voided by a Sentence of Repeal whereby he became Incumbent again by virtue of his First Presentation without any new Presentation Institution or Induction In those days it was held That the Marriage of a Priest was a sufficient cause to deprive him of his Benefice Mich. 4. Ma. Dy. 133. 6. In the Case where a meer Lay-man is Presented Instituted and Inducted he is notwithstanding his Laity such an Incumbent de facto that he is not Deprivable but by a Sentence in the Ecclesiastical Court but then the Ordinary is in that case to give Notice of such Deprivation to the Patron otherwise in case the Ordinary for that cause refused him when he was Presented by the Patron But where Non-age is the cause of Deprivation as when one under the age of 23 years is Presented Notice is to be given it having been Adjudged That no Lapse shall incurr upon any Deprivation ipso facto without Notice seeing the Statute of 13 Eliz. 12. says nothing of Presentation which remaining in force the Patron ought to have Notice 7. As in the Admission of a Clerk to a Benefice whatever is a Legal impediment will also be a sufficient cause of Deprivation so in reference to both the Law takes care to distinguish between that which is only Malum prohibitum and that which is Malum in se and therefore doth not hold the former of them such as frequenting of Taverns unlawful Gaming or the like to be a sufficient cause of a Clerks Non-admission to a Benefice or of his Deprivation being Admitted Otherwise if you can affect him with that which is Malum in se in which case Notice is to be given the Patron by the Ordinary of the Cause of his Refusal or Deprivation as also it is in case of Deprivation for not Subscribing or not Reading the 39 Articles of Religion according to the foresaid Statute of 13 Eliz. 12. which Notice ought to be certain and particular a general Notice of Incapacity not sufficing in which case an Intimation of such particular Incapacity affixed on the Church-door if the Patron be in partibus longe remotis or may not easily be affected therewith will answer the Law Vid. 18 Eliz. Dyer 346. 22 Eliz. Dyer 369. 16 Eliz. Dyer 327. Co. par 6. 29. Green 's Case 8. It is evident from the Premisses That a Deprivation from an Ecclesiastical Benefice will follow upon a Disgrading or Degradation from the Ecclesiastical Function or Calling for this Degradation is the Incapacitating of a Clerk for discharge of that holy Function for it is the punishment of such a Clerk as being delivered to his Ordinary cannot purge himself of the Offence whereof he was convicted by the Jury And it is a Privation of him from those holy Orders of Clerkship which formerly he had as Priesthood Deaconship c. And by the Canon Law this may be done Two waies either Summarily as by Word only or Solemnly as by devesting the party degraded of those Ornaments and Rites which were the Ensigns of his Order or Degree But in matters Criminal Princes anciently have had such a tender respect for the Clergy and for the credit of the whole profession thereof That if any man among them committed any thing worthy of death or open shame he was not first executed or exposed to Publick disgrace until he had been degraded by the Bishop and his Clergy and so was executed and put to shame not as a Clerk but as a Lay-Malefactor which regard towards Ecclesiasticks in respect of the dignity of the Ministry is observed by a Learned Author to be much more Ancient than any Papistical Immunity and is such a Priviledge as the Church in respect of such as once waited on the Altar hath in all Ages been honoured with 9. Robert Cawdry Clerk Rector of the Church of L. was deprived of his Rectory by the Bishop of London and his Collegues by virtue of the high Commission to them and others directed because he had pronounced and uttered slanderous and contumelious words against and in depravation of the Book of Common Prayer but the Form of the Sentence was That the said Bishop by and with the assent and
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
not averr that that Hay was growing upon Greenskips c. And an Exception was taken by Henden 1. That the Exception is double the Custome and the Common Law And by Yelverton That is not material for you may have twenty Suggestions to maintain the Suggestion of the Court but Richardson was against that that a Suggestion might be double here for the Suggestion of the Common Law is a Surplusage As in Farmer and Norwich's Case here lately One Prescribes to be discharged of Tithes where the Law discharged him and so was discharged by the Common Law Second Exception is That he doth not apply the Custome to himself in the Suggestion for he that lays the Custome does not shew that the Hay grew upon the Skips upon which a Plough might turn it self and for this cause by the whole Court the Suggestion is naught And here Richardson moved how that Two should joyn in a Prohibition Yelverton If they are joyned in the Libel they may joyn in the Prohibition and that is the common practice of the Kings Bench. Richardson The wrong to one in the Ecclesiastical Court by the Suit cannot be a wrong to the other Hutton They may joyn in the Writ but they ought to sever in the Declaration to which Harvey agreed Yelverton The Prohibition is the Suit of the King and he joyns tant as in a Writ Richardson But it is as the Suit of the party is and if any joyn here I think good cause of a Consultation It is against the profit of the Court to suffer many to joyn And it is usual in the Case of Customes of a Parish in debate to order Proceedings in the two Prohibitions and that to bind all the Parish and Parson And it was said by them all That the Consideration of making Hay is a good Discharge because it is more than they are bound to do 53. F. sued V. for Tithes of Hay which was upon Land that was Heath-ground and for Tithes of Pidgeons And by Richardson If it was meer Waste-ground and yield nothing it is excused by the Statute of payment of Tithes for seven years But if Sheep were kept upon it or if it yield any Profit which yield Tithes then Tithe ought to be paid As the Case in Dyer And for the Pidgeons which were consumed in the House of the Owner he said and for Fish in a Pond Conies Deer it is clear that no Tithes of them ought to be paid of Right wherefore then of Pidgeons quod nemo dedixit And a day was given to shew cause wherefore a Prohibition should not be granted And the Court agreed That it was Felony to take Pidgeons out of a Dove-house And afterwards a Prohibition was granted but principally That the Pidgeons were spent by the Owner But by Henden They shall be Tithable if they be sold 54. P. the Vicar of Eaton in the County of Oxon Sues C. the Parson Impropriate in the Ecclesiastical Court in Oxford pro Minutis Decimis C. sues a Prohibition against the Vicar upon a Surmize of a Prescription P. comes and pleads the first Endowment made An. Dom. 1310. by which the Minute Tithes were allotted to the Vicar C. demurrs and Adjudged for the Plaintiff for the Parson cannot Prescribe against the first Endowment 55. In Debt upon the Stat. of 2 E. 6. for not setting out of Tithes the Plaintiff declares That the Defendant was seized of the Lands in question within that Parish and that the Tithes did belong to the Parson and Vicar viz. Two parts to the Parson and the Third part to the Vicar or their Farmers payable in specie for 40 years last past that the Plaintiff was Farmer proprietary of the Tithes to the Parson and Vicar spectant and shews the value of the Tithes due and demands the treble value the â—â—â—ndant pleads Niâ—il debet per patr and it was found for the 〈◊〉 It was now moved in Arrest of Judgment because the Plaintiff ought to have brought two Actions as the Parson and the Vicar ought for their several parts But Resolved that the Action is well brought for it is a Personal and one entire Debt for one wrong 56. Bott sues a Prohibition against Sir Edward B. and suggests That the Defendant is Parson Impropriate of W. and that time out of mind there hath been a Curate of an Incumbent by the appointment of the said Rector who administred the Sacraments c. And that the Custome of that Parish time out of c. was that the Curate should have 〈◊〉 Tenths renewing within that Parish except Decimas graâ—â—â—â—m which were paid to the Parson and that every Parishioner who had so paid the Tenths to the Curate was discharged against the Parson And that notwithstanding that c. Sir Edward B. had sued him c. And now he prays a Prohibition and had it but after that Surmize was adjudged insufficient without Argument by the Court and a Consultation granted for such Curate cannot Prescribe against his Master that may remove him at his pleasure And for that reason it was not a good Prescription for the Parishioners 57. Goodwin being Vicar sues in the Ecclesiastical Court the Dean and Chapter of Wells bâ—ing Parson of a Church for a Pension and they pray a Prohibitionâ— and it was denied For that Pension is a Spiritual thing for which the Vicar may Sue in the Spiritual Court Note that they entitle themselves to that Parsonage by a Grant of H. 8. who had it by 31 H. 8. of Dissolutions 58. It was said by Hutton in Spencer's Case That by the Civil Law the Parishioner ought to give notice to the Parson when the Tithes are set forth But it was adjudged That the Common Law doth not so oblige a man 59. B. by his Deed Compounds for Tithes and after Sues for them in the Ecclesiastical Court by Popham and Gawdy That an Action upon the Case lies Vid. E. 4. 13 Mich. 4 Jac. The Lady Waterhouse was sued for the Tithes of Trees whereof none were due c. there an Action upon the Case does not lie for the Parson or person may well be ignorant of what things are due otherwise he Sues against his own knowledge 60. To have a Prohibition the Surmize was That the Inhabitants of D. of which he is an Inhabitant have paid un mod decimand c. And they were at Issue and he proved only that he himself had paid it and yet well And no Consultation for every particular is included in the general and proved by it And it appears sufficient matter for a Prohibition and to oust a Spiritual Court of their Cognizance 2 Agreed that where the Statute appoints Proof of the Surmize to be by Two it is sufficient if Two affirm that they have known it to be so or that the Common Fame is so 61. Upon a Surmize by a Parishioner That he had Compounded
may consult the Authors in the Margent The Parson of Henley brought an Action of Debt for 600 l. upon the Statute of E. 6. for not setting forth Tithes of Wood and shews that the Defendant had cut down 200 Loads of Wood to the value of 200 l. and saith that the Tenth part of that did amount to 200 l and so he brought his Action for 600 l. upon the Statute And the Plaintiff was Non-suit for one fault in his Declaration for whereas he declares the price of the Wood to be 200 l. it was mistaken for it should have been 2000 l. for he demanded more for the Tenth part than the Principal is by his own shewing If a man buy Wood Tithable and burn it in his own House he shall not pay Tithes thereof as hath been Resolved And no Tithes shall be paid for Wood cut and employed for the enclosures in the Husbandry Also if a man cut Wood and burn it to make Brick for repairing of his Dwelling-house for himself and his Family within the Parish no Tithes shall be paid for that Wood in regard the Parson hath benefit by the labour of the Family otherwise it is in case the Bricks were only to enlarge his house within the Parish and more than needful for his Family as for his pleasure or delight If a man sell Wood to me and I burn it in my house the Vendor shall stand charged for the Tithes thereof and not the Vendee for no Tithes are due for Wood burnt in the Parishioners house as hath been Resolved Pasch 14 Jac. in B. Parson Ellis Drakes Case and Prohibition granted accordingly Although it was said That by the Civil or rather Canon Law the Parson hath his Election to Sue either of them which is contrary to the Common Law In the Lord Clanrickard's Case against Dame Denton the Plaintiff surmized to the Court That all the Vill. of Kent which is a Precinct containig above forty Parishes time out of mind c. have been discharged of the payment of Tithes of Wood under the age of 20 years and the Defendant had sued him in the Ecclesiastical Court and hereupon had a Prohibition And the Defendant Traversed the Custome which a Jury was taken at the Bar to try and for inducement of the Custome Lindwood was produced in Cap. de Decimis where it is said That before that time Tithes were not paid for Wood which is contrary to the Old and New Testament and that Assertion is made by Stratford Archbishop of Canterbury for that this was a Provincial Constitution that at that time viz. 17. E. 3. Tithes of Sylva caedua shall be paid By which Constitution the Comminalty finding themselves grieved exhibited a Bill in Parliament the same year 17 E. 3. reciting the Ancient Usage of not paying such Tithes and the last Constitution to the contrary and prayed a Prohibition to the contrary To which Bill answer was made in this manner viz. Be it done in this case as it hath been done before this time And the next year another Petition was made in Parl. for the same cause to which it was answered also That where Tithes of Wood have not been used to be paid by Custome that a Prohibition shall be granted And these Acts of Parliament the Plaintiffs Counsel produced out of the Parliament-Rolls Crook Justice gave the Rule viz. Quod de grossis aâ—boribus Decimae non dabuntur sed de Sylva Caedua Decimae dabuntur Vid. Dr. Stu. 164. a. 169. b. Anscombe said The Doctor and Student mistook the maker of that Constitution of Stratford Archbishop In a Prohibition for Tithes of Wood it was suggested That in the Parish there is a Custome that all the Parsons of the said Church time out of mind Habuerunt gavisi fuerunt such Lands parcel of the Manner of F. in recompence of all Tithe Wood within the Parish It was the Opinion of the Justices that it was a good Prescription for it may be that at the beginning all the Land was parcel of the Mannor and then the allowance of the Profits of this Land was alotted in discharge of the Tithes of all the Woods within the Parish In Prohibition to stay a Suit in the Ecclesiastical Court for Tithes Wood it was shewed that the Custome of the Parish is That the Owners of any House and Land in the Parish who pay Tithe to the Parson ought not to pay Tithe for Wood spent for Fuel in their Houses It being found for the Defendant the Issue being upon the Custome It was said That notwithstanding there were any such Custome yet Tithe ought not to be paid for Wood spent for Fuel nor for Fencing-stuff but per Legem terrae he ought to be discharged thereof Resolved It is not de jure per Legem terrae that any one is discharged of them for it is usual in Parishioners to alledge a Custome but not to alledge that per Legem terrae he is discharged And in this case the Plaintiff in the Prohibition having alledged a Custome and it being found against him a Cousultation was awarded A Composition was betwixt an Abbot and a Parson that in recompence of the Tithes of all the Woods within the Mannor whereof the Abbot Owner That he should have to him and his Successor 20 Loads of Wood every year in 20 Acres of the said Mannor to burn and spend in his House The Parsonage was Appropriate to the Abbey and after the Abbey was dissolved the King granted the Parsonage to one and the 20 Acres to another It was Resolved That by the Unity the Estovers were not extinct for it they be Tithes they are not extinct by this Unity of possession for that Tithes run with the Lands and Tithes de jure Divino Canonica Institutione do appertain to the Clergy Wool of Sheep is Tithable proportionably to the time they are in the Parish as thus viz. The Parson shall have Eight pound of Wool in Eighty of Forty Sheep in the Parish a whole year Four pound of Wool in Forty if they were there but half the year Two pound of Wool in Twenty if they were there but Three months and but the Tithe or Tenth of the Twelfth part of the Wool if the lay and fed but One month in the Parish The Wool of Sheep shorn and dying before Easter next following such shearing is not Tithable unless the Parson or Vicar can alledge a special Prescription for it Therefore Q. where by Prescription such Tithe is claimed It is said also That a Custome to pay a Halfpeny for the Wool de ovibus venditis after shearing and before Michaelmass is good and that the Sheep discharged shall be Weathers as well as Ewes Also Wool-locks and Flocks of Wool after the Wool made are likewise Tithable if there be more than ordinary left otherwise not And if a Prescription be alledged to be discharged of Locks of Wool it
account 10 Months and 40 Weeks or all one but by accident an Infant may be born after the 40 Weeks or before Si partus nascatur post mortem Patru qui dicitur Posthumus per tantum tempus quod non sit verisimile quod possit esse defuncti filius hoc probato talis dici poterit Bastardus 13. It is agreed on all hands that Bawardy is an Ecclesiastica Cause and of Ecclesiastical Cognizance and therefore if Bastardy be pleaded in disability of a plaintiff the saâ—◠〈◊〉 be tried by the Certificate of the Bishop whether it be in Real Action relating to Inheritance or Personal relating to 〈◊〉 otherwise where Action on the Case will lie But if it be pleaded that the Plaintiff was born at such a place before the Marriage solemnized and so he is a Bastard This the Common Law cals a Special Bastardy and shall be tried by Jury at the Common Law where the Birth is alledged So in the Duke of Suffolk's Case of Partition where Special Bastardy was pleaded and Issue thereupon taken the Trial was awarded to be by a Jury of London And where in an Action upon the Case brought for calling one Bastard the Defendant justified that he was a Bastard it was awarded that it should be tried by the Countrey and not by the Ordinary Which seems somthing Paradoxical that if Bastardy be pleaded in Disability of a Plaintiff then it shall be tried by the Bishops Certificate but if it be pleaded that the Plaintiff was born in such a place before the Marriage then by a Jury The former whereof is said to be a general Bastardy the other a special Bastardy whereas in truth they both seem to differ only in this that the former seems to be a general relating to the Plaintiffs condition in respect of his Disability the other seems to be a special relating to the circumstances of Place and Time of his Nativity but both referring to his Bastardy 14. If a man that is ordered by two Justices of the Peace to keep a Bastard-Child he being according to the said Order the reputed Father shall appeal from the said Order to the next Quarter Sessions according to the Stat. of 18. Eliz. and being there discharged and the said Order repealed shall yet afterwards at another Quarter-Sessions of the Peace upon re-examination of the matter be ordered according to the first Order in that case it hath been held by the Court that the second Sessions had no power to alter the Discharge made by the former Sessions v And in another Case it hath been resolved that before the Statute of 3. Car. c. 4. the Justices at the Sessions had no Authority to intermeddle in the Case of Bastardy till the two next Justices according to the Stat. of 18. Eliz. had made an order therein As also that by the Stat. 3. Car. the Justices of their several Limits are to make an Order in Case of Bastardy 15. C. commenced an Action in the Spiritual Court against W. for saying that he had a Bastard W. the Defendant alledged in the said Court that the Plaintiff was adjudged the reputed Father of a Bastard by two Justices of the Peace according to the Statute whereupon he spake the words The Spiritual Court accepted of his Confession but would not allow of his Justification whereupon he prayed a prohibition and it was granted It is not denied but that if the Spiritual Court try a thing that is of Temporal Cognizance a Prohibition may lie although all the Cause were originally Spiritual as was resolved in Kenns Case in which Case it was likewise resolved that where the Cause is Spiritual there the Spiritual Court hath Jurisdiction and in the Case between Banting and Lepingwell it was resolved that the Judges of the Common Law ought that is the word in the Report to give Faith Credit to the Proceedings of the Spiritual Court albeit it be against the Reason of their Law 16. If a man having a wife take another wife and hath Issue by her living the former wife such Issue is a Bastard for the second Marriage is void If a man marry one within the Degrees prohibited the Issue between them is not by the Common Law a Bastard until there be a Divorce for by that Law the Marriage is not till then void So it is although the Brother Marry the Sister If a Man hath Issue by A. and after Marries her yet the Issue is a Bastard at the Common Law An Ideot may consent to Marriage by the Common Law though he were an Ideot from his birth and his Issue by that Law is Legitimate If the Husband be castrated so that it is apparent that he cannot by any possibility beget any Issue and his Wife have Issue divers years after it shall be a Bastard although it be begotten under Marriage for that it is apparent that it could not be Legitimate 17. By the Law of the Land a Man cannot be a Bastard who is born after the Espousals unless there be some special matter in the case If a Woman be big with Child by A. and after A. Marry her and the Issue is born within the Espousals in this Case by the Common Law the Issue is a Mulier and not a Bastard So if a Woman be big with Child by one Man and after-wards another Marries her and after the Issue is born such Issue is a Mulier for that he is born under Espousals and cannot be held the Issue of him by whom she was with Child because that cannot be certainly known and so it is although the Issue were born within three days after Marriage 18. If a Woman Covert hath Issue in Avoutrie yet if the Husband be able to get a Child and be infra quatuor maria the Issue is no Bastard If a Woman Elope and live in Avoutrie with another Man during which Issue is born in Avoutrie yet it is a Mulier by the Common Law But then the Husband must be infra quatuor maria so as that by intendment he might come to his Wife otherwise the Issue is a Bastard But if a Woman hath Issue her Husband being beyond sea for 7 years together before the Issue was born such Issue is a Bastard at the Common Law If a Feme Covert hath Issue her Husband being beyond Sea for 6 years before the Issue is born it is a Bastard at the Common Law If a Woman hath Issue her Husband being within 14 years of age the Issue is a Bastard at the common Law quaere 19. If A. hath Issue by B. and after they intermarry yet the Issue is a Bastard by the Common Law but it is a Mulier by the Civil Law If the Parents be Divorced causa Consanguinitatis they being ignorant thereof at their Marriage the Issues they
Church This double value shall be accounted according to the very or true value as the same may be let and shall be tried by a Jury and not according to the extent or taxation of the Church Co. par 3. Inst cap. 71. And albeit the Clerk be not privy to the Simoniack Contract yet it seems the Patron shall pro hac vice lose his Presentation But the Title of the rightful and uncorrupt Patron shall not be sorscited or prejudiced by the Simoniacal Contract of an Usurper albeit the Clerk be by his presentation admitted instituted and inducted nor entitle the King to present 4. The Church notwithstanding the Admission Institution and Induction becomes void whether the Clerk presented were a party or privy to the corrupt and Simoniacal Contract or not But Sir Simon Degee in his Parson's Counsellor puts the material Question viz. Whether the Clerk that is presented upon a Simoniacal Contract to which he is neither party nor privy be disabled for that turn to be presented by the King to that viz. the same Church In order to the resolution whereof he acquaints us with a Case reported wherein it was adjudged that if a Clerk were presented upon a Simoniacal Contract to which he was neither party nor privy that yet notwithstanding it was a perpetual disability upon that Clerk as to that Church or Living The like in another Case where B. the Church being void agreed with the Patron to give him a certain Sum of Money for the Presentation B. presented C. who knew nothing of the Simoniacal Contract till after his Induction In this Case it seem'd by Warburton Justice that C. was disabled quoad hanc Ecclesiam In which Case it was clear that the grant of the Presentation during the vacancy was meerly void that B. presented as an Usurper that C. was in by the corrupt Contract and that were it not for the same the Patron would not have suffered the Usurpation In further confirmation hereof it is also reported to us that Sir Edward Coke affirmed it hath been adjudged that if a Church be void and a Stranger contracts for a Sum of Money to present one who is not privy to the Agreement that notwithstanding the Incumbent coming in by the Simoniacal Contract is a person disabled to enjoy that Benefice although he obtain a new presentation from the King for that the Statute as to that Living hath disabled him during Life Notwithstanding all which Premises Sir Edward Coke in his Comment upon the said Statute of 31 Eliz. asserts it to have been adjudged in the forecited Case of Baker and Rogers that where the Presentee is not privy nor consenting to any such corrupt Contract there because it is no Simony in him he shall not be adjudged a disabled person within the said Act for the words of the Statute are And the person so corruptly giving c. And so says he it was resolved Mich. 13. Jac. Where the Presentee is not privy nor consenting to any corrupt Contract he shall not be adjudged a disabled person within the Act because it is no Simony in him Coke Inst par 3. cap. 71. Also it was so resolved in Doctor Hutchinsons Case by the whole Court viz. That if a Clerk be presented upon a corrupt Contract within the said Statute although he be not privy thereunto yet his presentation admission and induction are all void within the Letter of that Statute but not within the clause of disability within the same Statute 5. The Contracts which are commonly held corrupt and Simoniacal may be diversified almost into as many kinds as transferences and proprietary negotiations are capable of but those which have been most in practice as appears by the Cases reported in the Law have been by way of unlawful purchasing the next Advowson by Exchanges by Resignation Bonds by Matrimonial compacts by contracts remote and conceal'd from the Presentee by Obligations of an indirect nature and the like To the purposes aforesaid it hath been held Simony for a Parson to promise his Patron a Lease of his Tithes at such a Rent in case he would present another Parson into his Benefice with whom he was to exchange albeit that other was not privy to the Contract he making the Lease after It was likewise held Simony for a Father to present his Son by vertue of a purchase of the next Advowson which he made in the presence of his Son a Clerk when the Incumbent was not like to live by reason of a Sickness whereof he soon after died Otherwise in case the purchase had been made in the absence of the Son as is hereafter mentioned But per Hutt it was held Simony to purchase the next Advowson the Incumbent being sick The like in Winchcombes Case against the Bishop of Winchester and Puleston a Case hereafter often Margined on several accounts where it was held Simony in one Say who was presented upon a Contract which he made with the Patron the Incumbent being then sick for Ninety pound to present him when the Church should be void And as to Resignationbonds Sir Simon Degge affirms That in the case of Jones and Lawrence the sense of the Court was that if a Man be preparing his Son for the Clergy and have a Living in his disposal which falls void before his Son is capable thereof he may Lawfully take a Bond of such person as he shall present to resign when his Son becomes capable of the the Living otherwise in case the Patron take a Bond absolutely to resign upon request without any such or the like cause as for avoidance of Pluralities Non-residence or other such reasonable design The like you have in Babbington and Wood's Case hereafter mentioned So that it seems Bonds and Obligations given and taken upon just and honest grounds to resign are not in themselves Simoniacal Otherwise where ther 's is corruption in the case accompanied with some subsequent Act in pursuance thereof And although presentations made upon Simoniacal Bonds and Obligations are void in Law yet such Bonds themselves though corrupt and Simoniacal are not made void by the Statute of 31 Eliz. 6. B. brought Action against C. upon an Obligation The condition whereof was that whereas the Plaintiff did intend and was about to present the Defendant to the Benefice of Stow if the Defendant at the request of the Plaintiff should resign the same to the hands of the Bishop of London then the Obligation to he void The Defendant demanded Oyer and demurr'd and adjudg'd for the Plaintiff for the resignation might be upon a good intention to prevent pluralities or some other cause and it shall not be intended Simony if it be not specially pleaded and averr'd and Mich. 37. and 38. Eliz. Between Jones and Lawrence it was adjudg'd accordingly and affirmed an Error which the Court viewd and thereupon Judgement was given for the Plaintiff 7.
The Plaintiff declared that the Rectory of St. Peters infra Turrim London was void and that the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff would bestow his labour and endeavour to cause or procure him to be Rector of the said Rectory promised to give him Twenty pounds and that after the said Plaintiff procured him to be Rector by the Kings Commission and notwithstanding that he had requir'd him to pay the said Twenty pounds c. and thereupon he brought his Action upon the Case in the Court of the Tower of London and upon Non Assumpsit it was found for the Plaintiff and Judgement was there given upon which the Defendant brought Error and una voce all agreed that the Judgement was erroneous for the consideration was Simoniacal and against Law and not a good consideration therefore the Assumpsit was not good the Judgement was revers'd the Atturney said that that Court was a Court-baron as appears by a Record in the time of King Henry the Sixth 8. If A. be obliged to present B. c. and he presents by Simony yet the obligation is forfeited Or if one contract with the Patrons Wife to be presented for Money and is accordingly presented by her Husband it is Simony within the Stat. of 31 Eliz and makes the presentation void For the contract of the Wife is the contract of the Husband Likewise if the Patron present one to the Advowson having taken an Obligation of the Presentee that he shall resign when the Obligee will after Three months warning this is Simony within the Stat. of 21 Eliz. cap. 16. per Curiam Also if one promises to a Man that hath a Mannor with an Advowson appendant that if he will present him c. after the then Incumbents death he will give him such a certain Sum of Money and the other agree thereto and that by agreement between them the next avoidance shall be granted to B c. who after the then Incumbents death presents accordingly this is Simony because there was a corrupt Contract for the Advowson For although the next avoidance may be bought and sold bona fide without Simony yet if it be granted to one to perform a corrupt Contract for the same it is otherwise But if the Father purchase the next avoidance and after the Incumbents death presents his Son this is not Simony Yet by Hob. Chief Justice it was held that if in the grant of the next avoidance it appears that it was to the intent to present his Son or his Kinsman and it was done accordingly it is Simony Likewise if a Mans Friend promises the Grantee of the next avoidance a certain Sum of Money and so much certain per Annum if he will present B. to the Church Quando c. and B. not knowing any thing of the Contract be presented accordingly this is Simony For if a Stranger contract with the Patron Simonaically it makes the presentation void 9. A Patron took an Obligation of the Clerk whom he presented that he should pay Ten pounds yearly to the Son of the last Incumbent so long as he should be a Student in Cambridge unpreferr'd this is not Simony otherwise if it had been to have paid it to the Patrons Son per Cur. An Obligation was made by a Presentee to a Patron to pay Five pounds per An. to the late Incumbents Wife and Children the Parson kept and enjoyed the Parsonage notwithstanding great opposition to the contrary 10. A Parson preferr'd his Bill for Tithes the Parishioner pleaded that he was presented by corruption c. and by Simony and a Prohibition was granted notwithstanding the Parson pleaded pardon of the Simony by the King and it seem'd that it was now triable by the Common Law The Church may be full or void in effect when there is a Simoniacal Incumbent yet to say the Church was full for Six Months is no plea when he was in by Simony For a Quare Impedit may be had by the rightful Patron after the Six Months against the Incumbent of an usurper that is in by Simony And the death of a Simoniacal Incumbent doth not hinder but that the King may present for the Church was never full as to the King and that turn is presented to the King by force of the Statute 11. In the Stat. of 31 Eliiz there is no word of Simony for by that means then the Common Law would have been Judge what should have been Simony and what not by which Law the Simoniack is perpetually disabled And a Covenant to present such a one made under any consideration whatever be it of Marriage or the like may be Simoniacal But if a Father in Law upon the Marriage of his Daughter do only voluntarily and without any consideration Covenant with his Son in Law that when such a Church which is in his Gift falls void he will present him to it It hath been held that this is no Simony within the said Statute 12. A Simoniacal Usurper presenting shall not prejudice the rightful Patron by giving the King the presentation The proof of Simony will avoid an Action of Tithes commenced by a Simoniack Parson who dying in possession of the Church the King loses not his presentation because the Church was not full of an Incumbent but remains void though the Simony or Penalty thereof were pardoned y Lastly all corrupt resignations and exchanges of Ecclesiastical Livings are punishable with the forfeiture of double the Sum given and received both in Giver and Taker by the said Statute but it seems this works no avoidance or disability in the publick person 13. The Patron of an Advowson before the Statute of 31. Eliz. for Simony doth sell proximam Advocationem for a sum of money to one Smith and he sells this to Smith the Incumbent After which comes the general Pardon of the Queen wherby the punishment of Smith the Incumbent is pardoned and of Smith the Patron also If the Incumbent may be removed was the Question Williams said that the Doctors of the Civil Law informed him That the Law Spiritual was that for Simony the Patron lost his Presentation and the Ordinary shall present and if he present not within six montehs then the Metropolitan and then the King Spurling Serjeant This punishment cannot discharge the Forfeiture although it dischargeth the punishment Glanvil contra and said that this point was in question when the Lord Keeper was Atturney and then both of them consulted thereupon and they made this diversity viz. Between a thing void and voidable and for Simony the Church is not void until Sentence Declaratory and therefore they held that by the Pardon before the Sentence all is pardoned as where a man committs Felony and before Conviction the King pardons him by this Pardon the Lord shall lose his Escheat for the Lord can have no Escheat
Catholick Faith or any of the Articles thereof grounded on the word of God 5. By a Proviso in the Act of 1 Eliz. c. 1. no matter or cause shall be adjudged Heresie but such only as hath been so adjudged by the Authority of the Canonical Scriptures and by the first four General Councils or by any other General Council wherein the same was declared Heresie by the express and plain words of the Canonical Scripture or such as shall hereafter be determined to be Heresie by Parliament with the assent of the Clergy in their Convocation as appears by the said Statute the occasion of the making whereof was as suppos'd by reason of an Indictment against certain persons called Lollards upon the Statute of 2 H. 4. c. 15. Whose Opinions were 1. That it was not meritorious to go in Pilgrimage to St. Thomas nor to St. Mary of Walsingham Nor 2 To adore the Image of a Crucifix or of Saints Nor 3 To confess sins to a Priest but to God onley c. 6. Sir Ed. Coke in the third part of his Institutes cap. 5. doth assert that both by the Books at Common Law and by History it doth appear that an Heretick may be convicted before the Archbishop and other Bishops and other the Clergy at a General Synod or Convocation Bract. Lib. 3. fo 123 124. in Concil Oxon. Newburgh l. 2. c. 13. 6 H. 3. Stow. Hol. 203. 2 H. 4. Rot. Parl. nu 29. Sautries Case F. N. B. 269. 2. 1 El. c. 1. And the Bishop of every Diocess may convict any for Heresie and so might have done before the Statute of 2 H. 4. c. 15. For the Diocesan hath Jurisdiction of Heresie and so it was practised in all Q. Elizabeths Reign and accordingly it was resolved by all the Justices in the the Case of Legate the Heretick And that upon a conviction before the Ordinary of Heresie the Writ de Haeretico comburendo did lye Without the aid of the Act of 2 H. 4. c. 15. it seems the Diocesan could Imprison no person accused of Heresie but was to proceed against him by the censures of the Church And now says the Lord Coke in the forecited place In as much as not only the said Act of 2 H. 4. but also that of the 25 H. 8. c. 14. are repealed the Diocesan cannot Imprison any person accused of Heresie but must proceed against him as he might have done before these Statutes by the censures of the Church as it appears by the said Act of 2 H. 4. c. 15. according to Sir Ed. Coke in that place aforesaid where he also saith that no person at this day can be indicted or impeached of Heresie before any Temporal Judge or other that hath Temporal Jurisdiction But every Archbishop of this Realm may cite any person dwelling in any Bishops Diocess within his Province for causes of Hersie if the Bishop or other immediate Ordinary thereunto consent or if that the same Bishop or other immediate Ordinary or Judge do not his duty in punishing the same 7. Again Sir Ed. Coke in the forementioned place affirms that it appears by Bracton Britton Fleta Stanford and all the Books of the Common Law that he who is duly convicted of Heresie shall be burnt to death Mir. c. 4. de Majesty Bract. ubi sup Britt c. 9. Fleta l. 1. c. 35. Reg. F. N. B. 269. But the Ecclesiastical Judge cannot as he says at this day commit the person that is convict of Heresie to the Sheriff albeit he be present to be burnt but must have the Kings Writ De Haeretieo Comburendo according to the Common Law F. N. B. 269. Rot. Par. 2 H. 4. nu 29. Sautries Case Bre. de haeret Combur per Reg. Concil in Parliam The reason Sir Ed. Coke gives wherefore Heresie is so extremely and fearfully punish'd is for that Gravius est aeternam quam Temporalem Laedere Majestatem And Haeresis est lepra animae The party duly convicted of Heresie may recall and abjure his Opinion and thereby save his life but a relapse is fatal And if the Heretick will not says he after conviction abjure he may by force of the said Writ be burnt without abjuration 2 H. 4 Rot. Parl. N. 24. A Writ was issued by the advice of the Lords Temporal in Parliament to the Sheriffs of London and subscribed per ipsum regem concilium in Parliamento by which the Sheriffs were commanded to burn William Sautre who had been before condemned for a relapsed Heretick by the Archbishop of Canterbury Apostolicae sedis Legatum and other Suffragans and all the Clergy of that Province in Concilio suo Provinciali Congregat juris ordine Note 1 Eliz. cap. 1. Proviso that such as have Jurisdiction by Letters Patents shall not have power to Judge Heresie but in such Cases as have been before adjudged c. or such as shall hereafter be ordered judged and determined to be Heresie by the High Court of Parliament of this Realm with the assent of the Clergy in their Convocation as aforesaid Before a man shall be adjudged an Heretick he ought to be convicted by the Provincial Synod for the Common Law doth not take notice what is heresie If an Heretick convict shall after abjuration relapse into the same or any other Heresie and thereof be convict again the Writ De Hoeretico Comburendo may be directed to the Sheriff after the party is delivered by the Clergy unto the secular power And by the Statute of 2 H. 4. c. 15. Every Bishop in his own Diocess might as aforesaid convict a man of Heresie and upon another conviction after abjuration might by the Sheriff proceed unto comburation But that Statute is repealed by the Statute of 25 H. 8. c. 14. vid. co lib. 12. in a Case of Heresie Note 2 Ma. tit Heresie Brook per omnes Justiciarios Baker Hare The Archbishop in his Province in the Convocation may and doth use to convict Heresie by the Common Law and then to put them convicted into Lay-hands and then by the Writ De Haeretico Comburendo they were burnt but because it was troublesome to call a Convocation It was ordained by the Statute 2 H. 4. cap. 15. That every Bishop in his Diocess might convict Hereticks And if the Sheriff was present he might deliver such to be burnt without the Writ aforesaid but if the Sheriff were absent or he were to be burnt in another County then the said Writ ought to be had who are Hereticks vid. 11. H. 7. Book of Entries fo 319. vid. Doctor and Stu. lib. 2. cap. 29. Cosin 48. 2. 1 2. P. M cap. 6. Also 3 F. N. B. fo 269. And the Writ in the Register proves this directly 4 Bracton l. 3. cap. 9. fo 123 124. And it is also true that every Ordinary may convent any Heretick or Schismatick before him pro salute animae and may degrade him
condemning the Heresies of Pelagius and Coelestius concerning the power of Mans Nature not supported by the Grace of God and Free Will of Man to do good of it self as also to inhibit Appeals to Bishops beyond Sea on pain of being secluded from the Communion of all African Bishops At Carthage in the year 402 under Honorius and Theodosius the Second a National Council of 217 Bishops was assembled which continued for the space of Six years The business of this Council was prevented by a Controversie happening between them and the Bishops of Rome who successively endeavoured but not successfully to perswade the African Bishops that they were under the Sovereignty and Jurisdiction of the Bishops of Rome to whom this Council would not allow of any Appeal from the Bishops of Africa At Bagaia in Africa about the year 433. certain Donatists to the Number of 310 assembled themselves in Council chiefly for the deposition of Maximinianus Bishop of Bagaia whom they Deposed and Accursed because he had renounced their Heresie and had recovered many others from the Error of that way At Ephesus in the year 434. and in the Eighth year of the Reign of Theodosius the Second by some called Theodosius the Younger was a General Council assembled against the Heretick Nestorius Bishop of Constantinople which Council consisted of above Two hundred Bishops by Command from the Emperour By which Council Nostorius for his Heresie in denying the Son of the Virgin Mary to be God and consequently the Personal Union of the Divine and Humane Nature of Christ was Banished to Oasis This was the first General Council of Ephesus promoted by Celestine the First wherein Two hundred Bishops as aforesaid condemned Nestorius together with Carisius his flattering Presbyter who instead of Two Natures acknowledged divers Persons in Christ and therefore pleaded that the Blessed Virgin Mary should be styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In this Council Cyrillus of Alexandria is recorded President whom Nestorius being piously and brotherly invited to a better Opinion proudly contemned and having craftily allured John of Antioch to his party Anathematiz'd him and the Council who had formerly Anathematiz'd him The matter being related to the Emperour and throughly understood Cyrillus and his are cleared but Nestorius with his party is Banished as aforesaid to Oasis a Sandy Habitation where like another Cain says a Modern Historian roving here and there Blaspheming at length his Tongue being consumed and eaten up by Worms he breathed out his last There are it seems two Copies of this Council the First observing Eight the Second Thirteen Canons which are comprehended in the Anathema's of Cyrillus The Massilianites termed also Euchites and Enthusiasts were condemned by this Council and thereby the integrity of the Nicene Creed confirmed At Ephesus under Theodosius the Second was likewise a Particular Council assembled by Flavianus Bishop of Constantinople who condemned Eutyches an Abbot of Constantinople for Affirming That in Christ after the Union of the Divine and Humane Natures there were no longer Two Natures which absurd Opinion Flavianus damned as Heretical So that the occasion of this Second Council of Ephisus An. 449. was this Eutyches an Archimandrite of Constantinople who after Manes and Apollinaris denied the Flesh of Christ to be like ours but affirmed that falling from heaven like the Rays of the Sun it penetrated the Virgins womb And so he denied that Two Natures were in Christ Incarnate but asserted that his Flesh was changed into his Divinity for which he was as aforesaid condemned by Flavianus Patriarch of Constantinople and Eusebius Bishop of Doril and others their Associates yet by the help of Chrysaphius the Eunuch and Eudoxia the Empress whom he had seduced he prevailed with Theodosius that the matter might be determined by a Famous Synod for which reason this at Ephesus by the Emperours Authority was called where 128 Bishops met Dioscorus of Alexandria being President one so full of Eutychianism that Eutyches is absolved and the reclaimers forced says the Historian to subscribe by Club-Arguments Flavianus opposing it was so suriously trodden upon that three days after he died besides many very Learned Bishops discharged of their Places yet not long after all this was dashed in pieces by the most Famous Council of Chalcedon At Berytus in Phoenicia was held a Council about this time where in the Cause of Ibas Bishop of Edessa whom Dioscorus had deposed was revived and himself justified and absolved At Agatha in France was a Council held wherein nothing was more remarkable than that they had liberty to meet together by the Command of Alaricus King of Gothes who at that time had the Sovereignty in that parr of France called Gallia Norbonensis whence it appears That Councils both General and National were in all Countreys Convened by the Authority of Sovereign Princes At Chalcedon in Bythinia in the year 455. and in the Fourth year of Marcianus the Emperour was a General Council at which was present in person the Emperour and 630 Bishops and Reverend Fathers from most parts of the World In this Council Dioscorns Bishop of Alexandria together with Eutyches and Juvenalis Bishops at Jerusalem was condemned as an Heretick for absolving the Heretick Eutyches in the Council at Ephesus and acting other Crimes whereof he was then accused In this Council it was Ordained That men should believe that the Natures of Christ albeit that they were united yet were they not confounded as Eutyches had Heretically affirmed Also in this Council it was Ordained That Anatelius Bishop of Constantinople and his Successors should have the chief Dignity next unto the Chair of Rome This Council was called by the said Emperour Martianus against the said Eutyches Abbot of Constantinople and his Champion Dioscorus of Alexandria the suppositious Acts of the Council held at Ephesus were condemned by this Council those of Ephesus being in favour of Eutyches who affirmed one only Nature to be in Christ viz. his Divine Nature after his Incarnation It is not clear or certain who was President of this Council of Chalcedon excepting the Emperour and Judges Moderators The matters thereof were for the most part by favouring parties between Leo the First of Rome and Anatholius Patriarch of Constantinople At Ravenna in the Sixth Century was a Council Assembled by occasion of the Schism happening on the Election of Symmachus to the See of Rome whose Competitor was Laurentius afterwards made Bishop of Nuceria In Symmachus his time were no less than Six Councils held at Rome all Convened by Authority of Theodoricus King of Gothes who then Reigned in Italy and all of little importance otherwise than the Endeavours that then were for the Supremacy whereat they aimed At Valentia in Spain were assembled Two Councils called Herdense and Valentinum both very obscure Councils there being in the one but Eight Bishops present
of Pope Julius the Third An. 1551. which had only Three Sessions by reason of Wars happening in Germany At this Second Meeting the French King protested against this Council The Third Meeting whereof was Nine years after the Second it being appointed by Pope Pius the Fourth there having been in this interval since the Second Meeting when Julius the Third was Pope two other Popes viz. Marcellus and Paulus the Fourth At this Third and last Meeting there were Nine Sessions the Last whereof began the Third of December An. 1563. The chief Points treated of at this Council were concerning the Scriptures Original Sin Justification the Sacraments in General Baptism the removing of the Council the Eucharist Repentance Extream Unction Communion of Lay-persons under one kind the Sacrifice of Masse the Sacrament of Order Matrimony Purgatory Worshipping of Reliques Invocation of Saints Worshipping of Images Indulgencies the choice of Meats Fastings and Festivals The History of this Council of Trent is extant Of National Councils there have been many more than what are before mentioned as here in Britain and in Italy Spain France Germany the Eastern and African In Italy it is said that there are to be found 115 such Synods as it were National which go under the Name of Roman Councils But such as are of the most Remark in each of these Countreys and the principal things they determined you may find a touch of and no more in the Learned Bishop Prideaux his Synopsis of Councils in the Eighth Chapter Edit 5. Oxon. 1672. CHAP. XLII Of Excommunication 1. What Excommunication is It is Twofold 2. By what Appellations the Greater and Lesser Excommunication are known and distinguished their respective derivations and significations and the nature of each 3. Ecclesiastical Censures in the general may be Threefold 4. What the Law intends by Excommunication ipso facto 5. What the Excommunicate is not debarr'd of by Law 6. Legal Requisites to the due pronunciation of the Sentence of Excommunication 7. What course the Law takes with an Excommunicate after Forty days so perisisting obstinate 8. The several Causes of Excommunication ipso facto enumerated by Lindwood 9. The Causes of Excommunication ipso facto by the Canons now in force in the Church of England 10. The several Writs at Law touching persons Excommunicate and the Causes to be contained in a Significavit whereon the Excommunication proceeded 11. What the Writs de Excommunicato Deliberando also de Excommunicato Recipiendo do signifie in Law 12. A sufficient and lawful Addition to be in the Significavit and in the Excom Capiend Vid. Sect. 10. 13. Several Statutes touching Persons Excommunicated 14. Excommunication for striking in the Church 15. Whether a Bishop hath Jurisdiction or may Cite a man out of his Diocese 16. What are the Requisites of a Certificate of Excommunication for stay of Actions and how it ought to be qualified 17. A Significavit of Excommunication for not Answering Articles not shewing what they were not good 18. By whom an Excommunication may be Certified and how 19. In what case the Significavit of an Excommunication ought to express one of the Causes mentioned in the Statute 20. Whether a General Pardon doth discharge an Excommunication for Contempt precedent to the Pardon or shall discharge the Costs of Court thereon 21. A man taken upon an Excom Cap. and discharged because the Significavit did not express the party to be Commorant within the Bishops Diocess at the time of the Excommunicat 22. Where a man is twice Excommunicated whether an Absolution for the latter shall purge the first Excommunication 23. Whether a Prohibition lies to the Ecclesiastical Court upon Costs there given not in an Action at the Suit of the party but upon an Information there exhibited 24. What Remedy in Law for a party wrong fully Excommunicated and so remaining Forty daies without suing a Prohibition 25. Whether a Person taken by a Capias de Excom Capiend be Bailable or not And whether the Bishop may take Bond of the Excommunicate to perform Submission for their Absolution 1. EXcommunication commonly termed in the Common Law in the Law-French thereof Excommengement is a Censure of the Church pronounced and inflicted by the Canon or some Ecclesiastical Judge lawfully Constituted whereby the party against whom it is so pronounced is pro tempore deprived of the lawful participation and Communion of the Sacraments And is also sometimes as to Offenders a deprivation of their Communion and sequestration of their persons from the Converse and Society of the Faithful And therefore it is distinguish'd into the Greater and Lesser Excommunication the Greater comprizing as well the latter as the former part of the abovesaid definition or description the Lesser comprizing only the former part thereof de Except c. a nobis Lindw de Cohab. Cler. gl in verb. Sacramenta Excommunicatio quasi extra Communionem For Excommunication is Extra Communionem Ecclesiae separatio vel Censura Ecclesiastica excludens aliquem à Communione Fidelium This Ecclesiastical Censure when it is Just is not by any means to be despised or opposed for Christ himself is the Author thereof Anciently among the Hebrews such persons as were Excommunicated were termed Aposynagogi as being quasi Synagoga exacti and to be shun'd or avoided of all men until they repented That of our Saviour in Matth. 18. 17. Let him be unto thee as an Heathen man and a Publican seems to referr to some such Excommunication the power whereof by way of Judicature being then in the Jewish Sanhedrim or Colledge of Elders 2. This Ecclesiastical Censure when limited or restrained only to the Lesser Excommunication the Theologists will have to be understood by the Greek word Anathema Accursed or Separated and when it extends to the Greater Excommunication then to be understood by the Syriack word Maran-atha or Our Lord cometh Anathema Maran atha Anathema Let him be Accursed quasi Devoted to the Devil and separated from Christ and his Churches Communion Maran-atha Some take this for a Syriack word Others not so well satisfied with that Judgment will have it to be a Chaldee word yet used in the Hebrew and familiarly known among the Greeks Maran-atha viz. Our Lord cometh for Maran is our Lord and atha cometh or rather three words more properly viz. Mara-na-atha Our Lord cometh Being a word used in the greatest Excommunication among the Christians intimating or implying That they summoned the person Excommunicated before the dreadful Tribunal at the last coming of the Son of God or that such as were under this Censure of the Church were given up and reserved to the Lords coming to be judged by him and mean while without Repentance and Absolution are to expect nothing but the Terrible coming of Christ to take Vengeance of them To which that Prophesie of Enoch seems to allude Behold the Lord cometh with Ten thousands of his Saints to execute Judgment upon all
into the Church albeit Divine Service be not then celebrating unless it be to hear the word preached which being ended he is immediately to depart or stand at the Church-door in the time of Divine Service and hearing the same albeit he go not within the Church it self or thrust himself into the company of others when it is in his power to avoid it or lastly when he continues too long secure under such Sentence of Excommunication without repentance whereby the Law concludes him so manacled by his obstinacy as no Spiritual Physick can have any operation upon him And although regularly the Return of such a one is to be expected usque ad annum yet in this Kingdom quoad incovationem Brachii Secularis it is sufficient if Forty daies be expired after his Excommunication Ibid. c. 1. authoritate glos in verb. Contemnentes And whereas we often in the Law meet with certain Cases of Offences incurring the Sentence of Excommunication ipso facto that is as aforesaid nullo hominis ministerio interveniente Requiritur tamen even in that case Sententia Declaratoria C. cum secund Leges de Haeret. li. 6. Lindw de Foro Comp. c. 1. glos in verb. ipso facto 8. It is therefore not impertinent here to insert what principally those Offences are on the Guilty whereof the Law doth inflict this Excommunication ipso facto Lindwood tells us that there are found among the Canons and Constitutions Provincial these Cases following wherein Excommunication ipso facto is incurr'd viz. 1 A wilful and malicious impeding the execution of the Canon against Incontinency specially in Ecclesiasticks as to Concubines 2 A clandestine and surreptitious Proceeding at Law even to the Writ of Banishment against an innocent person and ignorant of the Proceedings 3 Bigamy 4 False Accusing of any Innocent Clergy-man before a Temporal Judge whereby he happens to suffer under the Secular Power 5 A laying Snares to entrap any in holy Orders whereby afterwards to charge them falsly before the Secular Powers with Crimes whereof they were not guilty 6 A violation of lawful Sequestrations made by the Bishops their Vicars general or principal Officials 7 The exercise of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction by any Clerk married or by any Lay-person in matters only and properly pertaining to the Cognizance of the Church 8 Disobedience to the Gregorian Constitution forbidding the holding of Two Benefices Incompatible cum Cura animarum without a Dispensation 9 A procuring to be Presented to a Benefice that is already full of an Incumbent by virtue of the Writs of Quare non admisit or Quare impedit or the like 10 Abettors and Advisors of any to fraudulent Conveyances or Deeds of Gift in fraudem Ecclesiae Regis Creditorum aut haeredum 11 All such as hinder any of what quality soever that are legally Testable from making their last Wills and Testaments or afterwards do unjustly obstruct the due execution of the same 12 All such as hinder the devotion of the people in making their Offerings and paying their Tithes converting them to their own use 13 All such as deny the gathering of the Tithes of any Fruit or molest and hinder the Collectors thereof 14 All Lay-persons who usurp upon such Oblations and Offerings as are due and appertain only to Ecclesiastical persons without their assent and the assent of the Bishop 15 Sacrilegious persons and all such as invade the just Rights Liberties or Revenues of the Church or otherwise unjustly possess themselves de bonis Ecclesiasticis 16 All Bayliffs and other Officers that unjustly enter upon the Goods of the Church or unduly exact from the same or commit Waste upon any the Revenues of a Church vacant 17 All Oppugners of Episcopal Authority or that resist and oppose the exercise of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and all such as disswade others from their due Obedience thereunto 18 All such as being imprisoned for their Contempt to some Ecclesiastical Sentence are thence set at liberty contrary to the Liberties and Customes of the Church of England being Excommunicate persons when they were first apprehended 19 All such as violently usurp upon the propriety of such Trees and Fruits as grow in the Church-yards rooting them up or felling them down or mowing down the Grass thereof contrary to the will and without the consent of the Rector or Vicar of any Church or Chappel or their Tenants 20 All such as should non ritè solemnize Prohibited Marriages that is such as have any Canonical Impediment 21 All such as contrary to the true Catholick sense shall assert any thing or lay down positions or make propositions sauouring of Heresie publickly in the Schools 22 All such as in their Preaching or otherwise shall violate the Canon that enjoyns a due examination and approbation of persons before they are admitted to Preach the Word of God 23 All such as touching the Sacraments assert any thing beside or contrary to the determination of the Church or call such things into doubt publickly as are defined and stated by the Church 24 All such as in the Universities do after a premonition to the contrary hold any Opinions or assert any Doctrines Propositions or Conclusions touching the Catholick Faith or good manners of an ill tendency contrary to the determination of the Church 25 All such Clerks as without Ecclesiastical Authority shall of themselves or by any Lay-power intrude themselves into the possession of any Parochial Church or other Ecclesiastical Living having Curam animarum These Cases and some others now not of use in this Realm are enumerated by Lindwood Lindw de Sententia Excom c. ult gloss in verb. Candelis accensis But there are very many other Cases in the Canon Law that fall under this Excommunication ipso facto by which in the Law is ever understood the Major Excommunicatio and was wont to be published and denounced in the Church Four solemn daies in every year when the Congregation was likeliest to be most full and that in Majorem terrorem 9. The Causes of Excommunication ipso facto according to the Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical of the Church of England now in force are such as these viz. 1 Impugners of the Kings Supremacy 2 Affirmers of the Church of England as now established to be not a true and Apostolical Church 3 Impugners of the Publick Worship of God establish'd in the Church 4 Impugners of the Articles of Religion establish'd in the Church of England 5 Impugners of the Rites and Ceremonies established in the Church of England 6 Impugners of the Government of the Church by Archbishops Bishops c. 7 Impugners of the Form of making and Consecrating Archbishops Bishops c. in the Church of England 8 Authors of Schisms in the Church 9 Maintainers of Schismaticks Conventicles and Constitutions made in Conventicles Likewise by the said Canons the Ecclesiastical Censure of Excommunication is incurr'd by all such Ministers as Revolt from the Articles unto which they subscribed at their
Fees wherewith Churches have been endowed otherwise in possessions of the Church newly purchased by Ecclesiastical persons 10 That such as Abjure the Realm shall be in peace so long as they be in the Church or in the Kings High-way 11 That Religious Houses shall not by compulsion be charged with Pensions resort or Purveyors 12 That a Clerk Excommunicate may be taken by the Kings Writ out of the Parish where he dwells 13 That the examination of the Ability of a Parson presented unto a Benefice of the the Church shall belong unto a Spiritual Judge 14 That the Elections to the Dignities of the Church shall be free without fear of any Temporal power 15 That a Clerk flying into the Church for Felony shall not be compelled to abjure the Realm 16 And lastly That the Priviledge of the Church being demanded in due form by the Ordinary shall not be denied unto the Appealor as to a Clerk confessing Felony before a Temporal Judge 2. In conformity to the premisses there were other Statutes after made in the time of King Ed. 3. whereby it was Enacted 1 That the goods of Spiritual persons should not without their own consents be taken by Purveyors for the King 2 That the King shall not collate or present to any vacant Church Prebend Chappel or other Benefice in anothers Right but within Three years next after the Avoidance 3 That the Temporalties of Archbishops Bishops c. shall not be seized into the Kings hands without a just cause and according to Law 4 That no waste shall be committed on the Temporalties of Bishops during Vacancies and that the Dean and Chapter may if they please take them to Farm 5 And lastly That the Lord Chancellor or Lord Treasurer may during such vacancies demise the Temporalties of Bishopricks to the Dean and Chapter for the Kings use 3. And as there are Articuli Cleri so there are also Articuli Religionis being in all thirty nine Agreed upon at a Convocation of the Church of England Ann. 1562. Ratified by Q. Elizabeth under the Great Seal of England Confirmed and Established by an Act of Parliament with his Majesties Royal Declaration prefixed thereunto Which Act of Parliament requires a Subscription by the Clergy to the said thirty nine Articles the same also being required by the Canons made by the Clergy of England at a Convocation held in London Ann. 1603. and ratified by King James The said Subscription referrs to three Articles 1. That the Kings Majestie under God is the only Supream Governour of the Realm and of all other his Highness Dominions and Countreys c. 2. That the Book of Common Prayer and of Ordaining of Bishops Preists and Deacons containeth nothing in it contrary to the Word of God c. 3. That he alloweth of the said thirty nine Articles of Religion and acknowledgeth them to be agreeable to the Word of God By the Statute of 13. Eliz. 12. the Delinquent is disabled and deprived ipso facto but the Delinquent against the Canon of King James is to be prosecuted and proceeded against by the Censures of the Church And it is not sufficient that one subscribe to the Thirty Nine Articles of Religion with this Addition so far forth as the same are agreeable to the Word of God For it hath been resolved by Wray Cheif Justice and by all the Judges of England That such subscription is not according to the Statute of 13. Eliz. because the Subscription which the Statute requires must be absolute But this is no other then Conditional 4. The Circumspecte agatis is the Title of a Statute made in the 13 th year of Ed. 1. Ann. D. 1285. prescribing certain Cases to the Judges wherein the Kings Prohibition doth not lie As in Case the Church-yard be left unclosed or the Church it self uncovered the Ordinary may take Cognizance thereof and by that Statute no Prohibition lies in the Case Nor in case a Parson demands his Oblations or the due and accustomed Tythes of his Parishioners nor if one Parson sue another for Tythes great or small so as the fourth part of the Benefice be not demanded nor in case a Parson demand Mortuaries in places where they have been used and accustomed to be paid nor if the Prelate of a Church or a Patron demand of a Parson a Pension due to him nor in the Case of laying violent hands on a Clerk nor in Cases of Defamation where Money is not demanded nor in Case of Perjury In all which Cases the Ecclesiastical Judge hath Cognizance by the said Statute notwithstanding the Kings Prohibition So that the end of that Statute is to acquaint us with certain Cases wherein a Prohibition doth not lie And the Statute of 24 Ed. 1. shews in what Case a Consultation is to be granted And by the Statute of 50. Ed. 3. cap. 4. no Prohibition shall be allowed after a Consultation duely granted provided that the matter of the Libel be not enlarged or otherwise changed CHAP. XLIV Of several Writs at the Common Law pertinent to this Subject 1. What the Writ of Darrein Presentment imports in what case it lies and how it differs from a Quare Impedit 2. Assise de utrum what and why so called 3. Quare Impedit what for and against whom it lies 4. What a Ne admittas imports the use and end thereof 5. In what case the Writ Vi Laica removenda lies 6. What the Writ Indicavit imports and the use thereof 7. What the Writ Advocatione Decimarum signifies 8. Admittendo Clerico what and in what Case issuable 9. The Writ Beneficio primo Ecclesiastico habendo what 10. That Writ Cautione Admittenda and the effect thereof 11. The writ of Clerico infra Sacros ordines constituto non eligendo in Officium What the use or end thereof 12. The Writ Clerico capto per Statutum Mercatorum what 13. What the Writ of Clerico convicto commisso Goalae in defectu Ordinarii deliberando was 14. What the Writ of Annua Pensione was anciently 15. The Writ of Vicario deliberando occasione cujusdam Recognitionis what 16. Three Writs relating to Persons excommunicated 17. Assise of Darrein Presentment brought after a Quare Impedit in the same cause abates 18. Difference of Pleas by an Incumbent in respect of his being in by the Presentment of a stranger and in respect of his being in by the Presentment of the Plaintiff himself 19. Notwithstanding a recovery upon a Quare Impedit the Incumbent continues Incumbent de facto until Presentation by the Recoverer 20. Of what thing a Q. Imp. lies and who shall have it 21. Who may have a Quare Impedit and of what things 22. How and for whom the Writ of Right of Advowson lies 23. What the Writ de jure patronatus and how the Law proceeds thereon 24. The Writ of Spoliation what and where it lies 25. The Writ