Consistory Among the many Learned Ecclesiedicts who have supplied that Ecclesiastical place William Lindwood who finished his industrious and useful work of the Provincial Constitutions about the year 1433. in the time of K. Henry the Sixth seems to be of the highest Renown his Education was in the University of Cambridge first Scholar of Gonvil then Fellow of Pembrook-hall his younger years he employed in the study of the Imperial and Canon Laws afterwards became Keeper of the Privy Seal unto King Henry the Fifth by whom he was honoured with an Embassie to the Crowns of Spain and Portugal After the Kings death he reassum'd his Officials place of Canterbury and then collected the Constitutions of the Fourteen later Archbishops of Canterbury from Stephen Langton unto Henry Chichley unto whom he dedicated that highly to be esteemed Work his Gloss thereon being in it self as a Canonical Magazine or the Key which opens the Magazine of the whole Canon Law It was printed at Paris An. 1505. at the cost and charges of William Bretton Merchant of London revised by the care of Wolfangus Hippolitus and Prefaced unto by Jodocus Badius This Famous Lindwood was afterwards made Bishop of St. Davids By the Grant of William the Conqueror the Bishops originally had an entire Jurisdiction to judge all Causes relating to Religion for before that time the Sheriff and Bishop kept their Court together He granted also to the Clergy Tithes of Calves Colts Lambs Woods Mills c. So that before the Conquest there were no such Courts in England as we now call Courts Ecclesiastical or Spiritual for Anciently the Bishops sate in Judgment together with the Secular Judges and Sheriffs on the same Tribunal specially about Easter and Michalmass which appears by Mr. Selden in his Notes on Eadmerus pag. 167. as also by the Laws of King Aethelstane Debent Episcopi cum Seculi Judicibus interesse Judiciis ne permittant si possint ut illinc aliqua pravitatum germina pullulaverint Sacerdotibus pertinet in sua Diocoesi ut ad rectum sedulo quemcunque juvent nec patiantur si possint ut Christianus aliquis alii noceat c. Chron. Jo. Bromton de Leg. Aethelst Reg. And in the Preamble to the Laws of that King you will find these words viz. Debet etiam Episcopus sedulo pacem concordiam operari cum Seculi Judicibus Yea long after the Conquest in the Reign of H. 2. An. 1164. by his Laws made at Clarendon the Bishops might interest themselves with the Kings Secular Judges where the matter in Judgment extended not to diminution of Members or were Capital An. 1164. Congregati sunt Praesules Proceres Anglicani regni apud Clarendoniam Rex igitur Henricus c. Then it follows in Lege undecima viz. Archiepiscopi Episcopi c. sicut Barones caeteri debent interesse Judiciis Curiae Regis cum Baronibus usque perveniatur in Judicio ad diminutionem Membrorum vel ad mortem Notwithstanding at the same time the Bishops Ecclesiastical Courts as also the Archdeacons Courts were established in this Kingdom and further ratified and confirmed by these very Laws of King H. 2. made at Clarendon as appears by the Tenth Law and that immediately foregoing the Premisses in haec verba viz. Qui de Civitate vel Castello vel Burgo vel dominico manerio Domini Regis fuerit si ab Archidiacono vel Episcopo de aliquo delicto Citatus fuerit unde debeat eis Respondere ad Citationes eorum noluerit satisfacere bene licet eum sub Interdicto ponere sed non debet c. exinde poterit Episcopus ipsum Accusatum Ecclesiastica Justitia coercere Chron. Gervas de Temp. H. 2. In those daies there was no occasion for that just Complaint which a Learned Pen as a Modern Author observes makes viz. That Courts which should distribute Peace do themselves practice Duells whilst it is counted the part of a Resolute Judge to enlarge the Priviledge of his Court Lord Bacon in his Advanc of Learn p. 463. Aphor. 96. It was with more moderation expressed by him who said It was sad when Courts that are Judges become Plaintiffs and Defendants touching the Bounds of their Jurisdiction In the first Parliament of King Edward the Sixth's Reign it was Enacted That all Process out of the Ecclesiastical Courts should from thenceforth be issued in the Kings Name only and under the Kings Seal of Arms contrary to the usage of former Times But this Statute being Repealed by Queen Mary and not Revived by Queen Elizabeth the Bishops and their Chancellors Commissaries and Officials have ever since exercised all manner of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in their own Names and under the distinct Seals of their several Offices respectively Also by the Statute of 25 H. 8. c. 19. it being Enacted That all former Canons and Constitutions not contrary to the Word of God the Kings Prerogative or the Laws and Statutes of this Realm should remain in force until they were review'd by Thirty two Commissioners to be appointed by the King and that Review being never made in that Kings time nor any thing done therein by King Ed. 6. though he had also an Act of Parliament to the same effect the said Ancient Canons and Constitutions remain'd in force as before they were whereby all Causes Testamentary Matrimonial Tithes Incontinency Notorious Crimes of Publick Scandal Wilful absence from Divine Service Irreverence and other Misdemeanours in or relating to the Church c. not punishable by the Temporal Laws of this Realm were still reserved unto the Ecclesiastical Courts as a standing Rule whereby they were to proceed and regulate the Exercise of their Jurisdiction Vid. Heyl. ubi supr p. 2 3. Touching the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and what Matters and Causes should be cognizable in the Ecclesiastical Courts of Normandy in the Reign of King Richard the First upon occasion of a Contest inter Ecclesiam ROTHOMAGENSEM WILLIELMUM Filium RADULFI Steward of Normandy it was nigh Five hundred years since finally Accorded Published inter alia Declared by all the Clergy That all Perjuries and Breach of Faith except in case of National Leagues all Controversies relating to Dowries and Donations propter Nuptias quoad Mobilia should be heard and determined in the Ecclesiastical Court it was then also so many hundred years since further Resolved in haec verba viz. Quod distributio eorum quae in Testamento relinquuntur auctoritate Ecclesiae fiet nec Decima pars ut olim subtrahetur It was likewise at the same time and so long since further Resolved That Si quis subitanea morte vel quolibet alio Fortuito Casu praeoccupatus fuerit ut de rebus suis disponere non possit Distributio Bonorum ejus Ecclesiastica auctoritate fiet Radulph de Diceto Hist de Temp. Rich. 1. Regis Of all the Churches in Great Britain that of Saint Pauls London is of the largest structure
Ecclesiastical Court might proceed to punish the Offender who offered violence to a Priest the which de jure it might do by proceeding Ex Officio pro salute animae Dammages on an Action of Battery in the case reserved to the Common Law To conclude The Protestation which Bellamera the Canonist in the Proem to his Lecture on the Clementine Constitutions makes shall as to this Repertorium Canonicum Jurisve Anglico-Ecclesiastici Compendium be mine Id submittens correctioni determinationi tam Canonum Ecclesiasticorum quam Statutorum Jurumque Publice Forensium Secularium cujuslibet melius sentientis Protestans quod si in praesenti Opusculo de lapsu chalami aut inadvertentia vel forte ex ignorantia aliqua jam Scripsero id praeter intentionem scribere me contigerit Si etiam aliqua Scripsero quae errorem saperent aut male sonarent illa ex nunc Revoco volo haberi pro non Scriptis Determinationibusque Ecclesiae Anglicanae dicti Juris Forensis Oraculis semper in omnibus volo stare Et hanc Protestationem volo pro Repetita haberi in quolibet Dictorum meorum etiam condicendorum ut si reprobantur dicta Actor non propter hoc reprobetur The several CHAPTERS of the Ensuing Abridgment CHAP. PAGE 1. OF His Majesties Supremacy 1 2. Of Archbishops 12 3. Of Bishops and Ordinaries 22 4. Of Guardians of the Spiritualties 39 5. Of Congé d'Eslire Election and Confirmation 43 6. Of Consecration 46 7. Of Deans and Chapters 51 8. Of Archdeacons 60 9. Of Procurations Synodals and Pentecostals 67 10. Of Diocesan Chancellors Commissaries Officials as also of Consistories 80 11. Of Courts Ecclesiastical and their Jurisdiction 94 12. Of Churches Chappels and Church-yards 134 13. Of Churchwardens Questmen and Sidemen 159 14. Of Consolidation and Vnion of Churches 169 15. Of Dilapidations 173 16. Of Patrons and De jure Patronatus 178 17. Of Parsons and Parsonages 185 18. Of Vicars Vicarages and Benefices 196 19. Of Advowsons 220 20. Of Appropriations 220 21. Of Commendams 230 22. Of Lapse 242 23. Of Collation Presentation and Nomination 251 24. Of Examination Admission Institution and Induction 269 25. Of Avoidance and Next Avoidance also of Cession 282 26. Of Pluralities 291 27. Of Deprivation 305 28. Of Incumbents also of Residence and Non-Residence 316 29. Of Abbots and Abbies also of Chauntreys and of the Court of Augmentations 326 30. Of Annates or First-Fruits also of Aumone or Frank-Almoin 335 31. Of Altarage 339 32. Of Tithes with the Incidents thereof 344 33. Of Banns 465 34. Of Adultery 469 35. Of Bastards and Bastardy 477 36. Of Divorce also of Alimony 492 37. Of Defamation 514 38. Of Sacriledge 528 39. Of Simony 535 40. Of Blasphemy Heresie and Hereticks 559 41. Of Councils Synods and Convocations 584 42. Of Excommunication 623 43. Of the Statutes Articuli Cleri and Circumspecte agatis 639 44. Of several Writs at Common Law pertinent to this Subject 643 AN ABRIDGEMENT OF Ecclesiastical LAWS CHAP. I. Of the Kings Supremacy 1. A Description thereof or what it is 2. The Establishment thereof by Statute Laws 3. The Oath of the Kings Supremacy when first Enacted the Cause thereof 4. The King in his own Dominions Dei Vicarius 5. The King Supream Governour under God of the Church in England c. 6. Impugners of the Kings Supremacy how censured by the Canon 7. In matters Ecclesiastical the King hath here the same power de jure which the Pope formerly exercised by Usurpation 8. The Kings of this Realm anciently made their own Canons and Ecclesiastical Constitutions without the Popes Authority 9. The King is Lex viva in some cases may dispence with some Canons 10. Provisoes of some Statutes in right of the Kings Supremacy 11. No Canons or Ecclesiastical Constitutions to be made or to be of force to oblige the Subject without the Royal Assent 12. The Regal Supremacy asserted by the Ecclesiastical Injunctions of King Ed. 6. 13. The same further asserted by other Eccles Powers and Authorities 14. The Regal Supremacy asserted in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth 1. THis Ecclesiastical Abridgment begins with the Regal Supremacy a Point which cannot be touch'd with too much tenderness such of the Church of Rome as question the validity thereof may be presumed not to have consulted that Learned Canonist of their own Jo. Quintinus Hoedeus where he says That Nemini dubium quin in Primitiva Ecclesia de rebus Personis Ecclesiasticis Principes jus dixerint The Emperours were all Secular Princes who by those Laws which they established touching Persons and Things Ecclesiastical proclaimed to all the world their Supremacy therein The Thirteen first Titles of the First Book of the Emperour Justinian's Code being the Constitutions of divers Emperours do treat and judge of Things and Persons meerly Ecclesiastical yea the Emperours Areadius and Honorius ejected a Bishop as well out of his Title of Ecclesiastical Dignity as out of his Episcopal See and commanded him to be Banished for disturbing the publick Peace l. quicunque C. de Episc Cleric By this word Supremacy is here understood that undoubted Right and ancient Jurisdiction over the State Ecclesiastical within these his Majesties Realms and Dominions with the abolishing of all Forein and Usurped Power repugnant to the same which the Laws and Statutes have restored to the Crown of this Kingdom and now invested in the King as the Highest Power under God within these his Majesties Realms and Dominions unto whom all persons within the same in all Causes and Matters as well Ecclesiastical as Temporal do owe their Loyalty and Obedience before and above all other Powers and Potentates on Earth whatever 2. By the Injunctions of King Ed. 6. to the Clergy all persons Ecclesiastical having cure of Souls were Four times a year to preach in vindication of the Kings Supremacy and in opposition to the usurped power of the Bishop of Rome in this Kingdom There were divers Laws made in the time of King H. 8. for the extinguishment of all Forein Power and for the restoring unto the Crown of this Realm the Ancient Rights and Jurisdictions of the same which is the substance of the Preamble of the Statute of 1 Eliz. cap. 1. The express Letter and meaning whereof is as Sir Edward Coke observes to restore and unite to the Crown the Ancient Jurisdiction Spiritual or Ecclesiastical where as he says the First clause of the Body of the Act being to let in the Restitution of the Ancient Right and Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical within the Realm doth abolish all Forein Jurisdiction out of the Realm And then followeth the principal Clause of Restitution and Uniting of the ancient Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical being the main purpose of the Act in these words viz. Be it Enacted That such Jurisdiction Spiritual or Ecclesiastical as by any Spiritual Power or Authority hath heretofore been or lawfully may be exercised or used
for the visitation of the Ecclesiastical State and Persons and for-Reformation Order and Correction of the same and of all manner of Errors Heresies Schisms Abuses Offences Contempts and Enormities shall for ever by Authority of this Parliament be united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm This Act by a former Clause thereof doth Repeal the Statute of 1 and 2 Ph. Ma. c. 8. whereby the Acts of 26 H. 8. c. 1. and 35 H. 8. c. 3. were repealed so that the Act of Repeal being repealed the said Acts of H. 8. were implicitely revived whereby it is declared and enacted That the King his Heirs and Successors should be taken and accepted the only Supream Head in Earth of the Church of England and should have and enjoy annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm as well the Title and style thereof as all Honours Dignities Prebeminencies Jurisdictions c. to the said dignity of Supream Head belonging c. By which Style Title and Dignity the King hath all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction whatever And by which Statute the Crown was but remitted and restored to its Ancient Jurisdiction which had been formerly usurped by the Bishop of Rome And this is that Supremacy which is here meant and intended 3. The said Statute of 1 Eliz. c. 1. doth not only repeal the said Stat. of 1 and 2 P. M. c. 8. but it is also a reviver of divers Acts asserting several branches of the Kings Supremacy and re-establishing the same it doth likewise not only abolish all Forreign Authority but also annex the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction to the Crown of this Realm with power to assign Commissioners for the exercise of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction And then further Enacts to this effect viz. That all Ecclesiastical persons of what degree soever and all and every Temporal Judge Justice Mayor or other Lay or Temporal Officer or Minister and every other person having Fees or wages from the Crown within this Realm or the Dominions thereof shall upon his Corporal Oath testifie and declare in his Conscience That the Kings Majesty is the only Supream Governour of this Realm and of all other his Majesties Dominions and Countries as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes as Temporal And that no Forreign Prince Person Prelate State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction power superiority preheminence or authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm And therefore doth utterly renounce and forsake all Forreign Jurisdictions powers superiorities and authorities and doth promise that from henceforth be shall bear Faith and true Allegiance to the Kings Majesty his Heirs and lawful Successors and to his power shall assist and defend all Jurisdictions priviledges preheminencies and authorities granted or belonging to the Kings Majesty his Heirs and Successors or united or annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm The practices of the Romanists in the 4th year of Queen Elizabeth and the danger thereby threatning both the Queen and State occasioned her to call a Parliament 12. Jan. An. 156 2 3 which passed an Act For assurance of the Queens Royal power over all Estates and Subjects within her Dominions By which Statute was enacted The Oath of Supremacy as also what persons were obliged to take it and who should have power to administer the same And this was both the original and the cause of that Oath By the said Statute of 1 El. c. 1. appears also what the penalty is for refusing to take the said Oath as also the penalty of maintaining a Forreign Authority as likewise what other persons than the fore-mentioned shall be obliged to take the said Oath which was afterwards again further ratified and established by the Statute of 5 Eliz. c. 1. 4. The King within his own Territories and Dominions is according to Bracton Dei Vicarius tam in Spiritualibus quam Temporalibus And in the Ecclesiastical Laws of Edward the Confessor the King is styled Vicarius summi Regis Reges regunt Ecclesiam Dei in immediate subordination to God Yea the Pope himself Eleutherius An. 169. styled King Lueius Dei Vicarius in Regno suo 5. The Supremacy which heretofore the Pope did usurp in this Kingdom was in the Crown originally to which it is now legally reverted The Kings Supremacy in and over all Persons and Causes Ecclesiastical within his own Dominions is essentially inherent in him so that all such Authority as the Pope here once usurped claiming as Supream Head did originally and legally belong to the Crown and is now re-united to it by several Statutes as aforesaid On this Supremacy of the King as Supream Head Sr. Edward Coke grounds the power of granting a Commission of Review after a Definitive Sentence in the Delegates for one Reason that he gives is because after a Definitive Sentence the Pope as Supream Head by the Canon Law used to grant a Commission Ad Revidendum And such Authority as the Pope had claiming as Supream Head doth of right belong to the Crown Quia sicut Fontes communicant aquas fluminibus cumulative non privitive sic Rex subditis suis Jurisdictionem communicat in Causis Ecclesiasticis vigore Statuti in hujusmodi Casu editi cumulative non privitive By the Second Canon of the Ecclesiastical Constitutions of the Church of England it is ordained That whoever shall affirm that the Kings Majesty hath not the same Authority in Causes Ecclesiastical that the godly Kings had among the Jews and Christian Emperors in the Primitive Church or impeach in any part his Regal Supremacy in the said Cases restored to the Crown and by the Laws of this Realm therein established shall be Excommunicated ipso facto and not be restored but only by the Archbishop after his repentance and publick revocation of those his wicked Errors 7. The King being next under God Supream Governour of the Church of England may Qua talis redress as he shall see cause in all matters of Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction for the conservation of the Peace and Tranquillity of his Realms The Pope as appears by the Stat. of 25 H. 8. c. 21. claimed full power to dispense with all human Laws of all Realms in all Causes which he called Spiritual Now the King as Supream hath the same power in himself within his own Realms legally which the Pope claimed and exercised by Usurpation Eadem praesumitur mens Regis quae est Juris The Kings immediate personal ordinary inherent power which he executes or may execute Authoritate Regia suprema Ecclesiastica as King and Supream Governour of the Church of England is one of these Flowers qui faciunt Coronam Nor is the Kings immediate power restrained by such Statutes as authorize inferiour persons The Lord Chief Justice Hobart asserts That although the Stat. of 25 H. 8. 21. doth say That all Dispensations c. shall be granted in manner and
form following and not otherwise yet the King is not thereby restrained but his power remains full and perfect as before and he may still grant them as King for that all Acts of Grace and Justice flow from him By the Eighth Canon Concilii Calchuthensis held under Pope Adrian the First An. 787. the Pope had power to grant what Immunities and Priviledges he pleased in Church-matters and they were by the said Canon to be duly observed Whatever Authority the Pope pretended to in this Kingdom in such matters by way of Usurpation the same may the King as Supream Governour of the Church next under God in his own Dominions use and lawfully exercise by his Regal Authority ex justa plenitudine Potestatis suae Likewise Pope Agathon An. 680. in Concilio Romano-Britannico exercised his Papal Authority in the time of Lotharius King of Kent not only touching the Reformation of Errors and Heresies then in this Church but also as to the composure of differences and dissentions that then were among the Clergy of this Realm Such Presidents of the usurped power of the Papal See exercised in this Kingdom are now of no further use than to illustrate or exemplifie the Legal power inherent in the Kings of this Realm in such matters of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction for the most High and Sacred Order of Kings being of Divine Right it follows that all persons of what estate soever and all Causes of what quality soever whether Ecclesiastical or Civil within his Majesties Realms and Dominions are subordinated to the Power and Authority of the King as Supream It is not only acknowledged but also constituted by way of an Ecclesiastical Canon That the power of Calling and Dissolving Councils both National and Provincial is the true Right of all Christian Kings within their own Realms and Territories 8. The Ecclesiastical Legislative power was ever in the Kings of this Realm within their own Dominions That in Ancient times they made their own Ecclesiastical Laws Canons and Constitutions appears by several Presidents and Records of very great Antiquity which were received and observed within their own Territories without any Ratification from any Forreign power One instance among many may be given of the Ecclesiastical Laws of Alured Mag. Regis Anglorum An. 887. This they did de jure by virtue of their own inherent Supremacy And therefore when Pope Nicholas the Second An. 1066. in the Bull wherein he ordained Westminster to be the place for the Consecration of Kings gave power to Edward the Confessor and his Successors to constitute such Laws in the Church as he should think fit he gave him therein no more than was his own before For the Kings of England might ordain or repeal what Canons they thought fit within their own Dominions in right of their Regal Supremacy the same being inherent in them Jure Divino non Papali For we find that in King AEtheldreds days An. 1009. in Concilio AEnhamensi Generali the Canons then made and afterwards caused by King Kanutus to be Transcribed were called the Kings Canons not the Bishops En hujus Concilii Canones quos in suas Leges passim transcripsit Rex Canutus Malmsburius AEtheldredo Regi non Episcopis tribuit And the Peers of this Realm per Synodum Landavensem were unexcommunicable nisi prius Consulto Rege aut ejus praecepto Which is a plain demonstration That the Kings of England Anciently had the Supremacy and superintendent Ecclesiastical power and Jurisdiction inherent in themselves exclusively to all other either home or Forreign powers whatever 9. It is by good Authority asserted That the King as Supream is himself instead of the whole Law yea that he is the Law it self and the only chief Interpreter thereof as in whose Breast resides the whole knowledge of the same And that his Majesty by communicating his Authority to his Judge to expound the Laws doth not thereby abdicate the same from himself but that he may assume it again unto him when and as oft as he pleases Dr. Ridl View p. 2. c. 1. Sect. 7. Consonant whereunto is that which Borellus hath Principum Placita Legis habent vigorem eatenus vim Legis obtinebunt quatenus fuerint cum honestate conjuncta Borel de Magist Edict l. 2. c. 4. Roland à Val. Cons 91. nu 54. vo 2. And Suarez tells us That Princeps est Lex viva reipsa praecipit ut Lex per scripturam Of which Opinion also is Alexander Imola and many others Suar. Alleg. 9. nu 13. The grant of Dispensations is a peculiar and very considerable part of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction the which is eminently in the Crown and by the Stat. of 25 H. 8. the Archbishop of Canterbury may grant Dispensations Archiepiscopus possit dispensare contra Statutum Provinciale per se editum Et qui potest jus condere potest illud tollere Lindw de Cler. Conju c. 2. gl ult Extr. de Elect. c. Significasti c. Intonuit And in another place Episcopus in quibusdam Casibus Dispensare potest contra Canones Const Otho de Concu Cler. gl ver Meritis 10. The Laws and Statutes of this Realm have been tender of the Kings Supremacy ever since the Forreign power over the State Ecclesiastical was abolished In the Statute of 13 Car. 2. cap. 12. there is a Proviso That nothing in the said Act shall extend to abridge or diminish the Kings Majesties Supremacy in Ecclesiastical matters and affairs And in the Stat. of 22 Car. 2. cap. 1. there is a Proviso That not any thing therein contained shall extend to invalidate or avoid his Majesties Supremacy in Ecclesiastical affairs but that his Majesty his Heirs and Successors may from time to time and at all times hereafter exercise and enjoy all Powers and Authority in Ecclesiastical affairs as fully and amply as any of his Predecessors have or might have done 11. As no Convocations for Ecclesiastical Constitutions or for correction or reformation of Abuses in the Church can be Conven'd without his Majesties Writ for that end and purpose so being Conven'd no Canons or Constitutions that shall then be agreed on can have any effect in Law or be in force to oblige any of his Majesties Subjects until his consent thereunto be first had and obtained and until they shall have the power of Ecclesiastical Laws by being ratified and confirmed by the Supream Authority Therefore the Archbishop of Canterbury may not hold a Council for his Province without the Kings leave for when such Council was held by Hubert Archbishop of Canterbury it was prohibited by Fitz-Peter Chief Justice for that he had not the Kings License therein but he would not obey And 13 E. 3. Rot. Parl. M. 1. there was a Writ for a Convocation of the Clergy of the Province of Canterbury and Pauls And another for the other of York vid. Stat. 25 H. 8. c. 19. where the Clergy of England acknowledge that
the Convocations of the same Clergy are and always have been and ought to be assembled only by the Kings Writ The Convocation is under the power and Authority of the King 21 E. 3. 45. b. 12. After the Reign of King H. 8. this Supremacy in the Crown was signally exercised by King Ed. 6. styling himself Supream Head under Christ of the Church of England and Ireland in the Preface of his Injunctions given as well to all the Clergy as Laity of this Realm the Close whereof is as followeth viz. All which singular Injunctions the Kings Majesty ministreth unto his Clergy and their Successors and to all his loving Subjects straitly charging and commanding them to observe and keep the same upon pain of Deprivation Sequestration of Fruits or Benefices Suspension Excommunication and such other Coercion as to Ordinaries or others having Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction whom his Majesty hath appointed for the due execution of the same shall be seen convenient Charging and commanding them to see these Injunctions observed and kept of all persons being under their Jurisdiction as they will answer to his Majesty for the contrary And his Majesties pleasure is That every Justice of Peace being required shall assist the Ordinaries and every of them for the due execution of the said Injunctions 14. The Three first Articles to be enquired of at the Visitations within the Province of Canterbury in the second year of the Reign of the said King Edward the Sixth were as followeth viz. 1. Whether Parsons Vicars and Curates and every of them have purely and sincerely without colour or dissimulation four times in the year at the least preached against the Usurped power pretended Authority and Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome 2. Whether they have preached and declared likewise four times in the year at least that the Kings Majesties power authority and preheminence within his Realms and Dominions is the highest power under God 3. Whether any person hath by writing cyphring preaching or teaching deed or act obstinately holden and stand with to extol set-forth maintain or defend the authority jurisdiction or power of the Bishop of Rome or of his See heretofore claimed and usurped or by any pretence obstinately or maliciously invented any thing for the extolling of the same or any part thereof Likewise by the Articles of Religion agreed on by the Convocation held in London and published An. 1553. by the Authority of King Ed. 6. it is declared That the King of England is Supream Head in Earth next under Christ of the Church of England c. and that the Bishop of Rome hath no Jurisdiction in this Realm The like you have in the Articles of Religion agreed on by the Archbishops and Bishops of both Provinces and the whole Clergy in the Convocation held in London An. 1562. and published by the Authority of Queen Elizabeth That the Queens Majesty hath the chief Power in this Realm of England and other her Dominions unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil in all Causes doth appertain and is not nor ought to be subject to any Forreign Jurisdiction Which Articles being the Articles of the Church of England were afterwards ratified and confirmed by his Majesty King CHARLES I. of ever Blessed Memory by his Royal Declaration thereunto prefixed in which Declaration you have as followeth viz. That we are Supream Governour of the Church of England and that if any difference rise about the External Policy concerning the Injunctions Canons or other Constitutions whatsoever thereto belonging the Clergy in their Convocation is to order and settle them having first obtained leave under our Broad Seal so to do and We approving their said Ordinances and Constitutions provided that none bâ— made contrary to the Laws and Customes of the Land Likewise in the first of the aforesaid Injunctions of King Ed. 6. as also in the first of the Injunctions given by Q. Elizabeth concerning both the Clergy and Laity of this Realm published Ann. 1559. being the first year of her Reign it is enjoyned That all Deans Archdeacons Parsons Vicars and all other Ecclesiastical persons shall faithfully keep and observe c. all and singular Laws and Statutes made for the restoring to the Crown the ancient Jurisdiction over the State Ecclesiastical and abolishing of all Forreign power repugnant to the same c. By the Statute of 25 H. 8. c. 19. Appeals to Rome are prohibited and it is Ordained that in default of Justice in any of the Courts of the Archbishops of this Realm it shall be lawful to appeal to the King in his Court of Chancery and thereupon a Commission shall be granted c. And by a Proviso towards the end of that Statute an Appeal is given to the King in Chancery upon Sentences in places exempt in the same manner as was before used to the See of Rome And as by the said Statute there may be an Appeal to the King in Chancery when the Suit is in the Archbishops Court or some Peculiar exempt so in some Cases the Appeal may be to the King generally as he is Supream Head of all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction within the Realm for by the Statutes made in the time of King Hen. 8. the Crown was only remitted and restored to its Ancient Jurisdiction which had been usurped by the Bishop of Rome 33 Ed. 3. Fitz. Aid del Roy 103. Reges sacro oleo uncti Spiritualis Jurisdictionis sunt capaces Rex est Mixta persona cum Sacerdote Et causa Spiritualis Committi potest Principi Laico Cassan in Catal. glo mund p. 5. Consid 24. The King of England c. is Persona Sacra mixta cum Sacerdote and at his Coronation by a solemn Consecration and Unction becomes a Spiritual person Sacred and Ecclesiastical and then hath tam Vestem Dalmaticam as an emblem of his Royal Priesthood quam Coronam Regni in respect of his Regal power in Temporals and is Supream Governour in all Causes and over all Persons as well Ecclesiastical as Civil The King is Supream Ordinary by the Ancient Common Law of England before the Statute of 24 H. 8. cap. 12. for a Resignation might be made to him he might make a Grant of a Church to a man to hold to his own proper use he might not only exempt any Ecclesiastical person out of the Jurisdiction of the Ordinary but also give him Episcopal Jurisdiction he might Present to Free Chappels in default of the Dean by Lapse and that as Ordinary and in respect of his Supream Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction he might dispense with one not lawfully born to be a Priest albeit the Ecclesiastical Laws allowed within this Realm do prohibite it but the reason is for that it is not Malum in se but Malum prohibitum In a word All that the Pope was wont to do in such cases within this Realm as
17. is to that purpose 11. In former times many Bishops had their Suffragans who were also Consecrated as other Bishops were These in the absence of the Bishops upon Embassies or in multiplicity of business did supply their places in matter of Orders but not in Jurisdiction These were chiefly for the ease of the Bishops in the multiplicity of their Affairs ordained in the Primitive times called Chorepiscopi Suffragan or Subsidiary Bishops or Bishops Suffragans and were Titular Bishops Consecrated by the Archbishop of the Province and to execute such Power and Authority and receive such profits as were limited in their Commissions by the Bishops or Diocosans whose Suffragans they were What Towns or Places to be the Sees of Bishops Suffragans and how many to a Diocess and in what Diocesses appears by an Act of Parliament made in the Reign of King H. 8. Such Suffragan Bishops are made in case the Archbishop or some other Bishop desire the same In which case the Bishop presents Two able persons for any place allowed by the said Act of Parliament whereof his Majesty doth chuse one but at present there are no Suffragan Bishops in England They were no other than the Chorepiscopi of the Primitive Times Subsidiary Bishops ordained for easing the Diocesan of some part of his burthen as aforesaid by means whereof they were enabled to perform such Offices belonging to that Sacred Function not limited to time and place by the ancient Canons by which a Bishop was restrained in some certain Acts of Jurisdiction to his proper Diocess Of these there were twenty six in the Realm of England distinguished by the Names of such Principal Towns as were appointed for their Title and Denomination The Names and Number whereof together with the Jurisdiction and preheminences proportioned to them the Reader may peruse in the Act of Parliament made An. 26 H. 8. 12. According to the Temporal Laws of this Land if a Bishop grant Letters of Institution under any other Seal than his Seal of Office and albeit it be out of his Diocess yet it is good For in Cort's Case against the Bishop of St. Davids and others where the Plaintiff offered in evidence Letters of Institution which appeared to be sealed with the Seal of the Bishop of London because the Bishop of St. Davids had not his Seal of Office there and which Letters were made also out of the Diocess It was held That they were good enough albeit they were sealed with another Seal and made out of the Diocess for that the Seal is not material it being an Act made of the Institution And the writing and sealing is but a Testimonial thereof which may be under any Seal or in any place But of that point they would advise 13. A Bishop if he celebrate Divine Service in any Church of his Diocess may require the Offerings of that day He may sequester if the King present not and 12 H. 8. 8. by Pollard he must see the Cure served if the person fail at his own Costs He may commit Administration where Executors being called refuse to prove the Will He hath power of distribution and disposing of Seats and charges of Repairs of the Churches within his Diocess He may award his Jure Patronatus where a Church is Litigious between an Usurper and the other but if he will chuse the Clerk of either at his peril he ought at his peril to receive him that hath Right by the Statute He may License Physicians Chirurgions Schoolmasters and Midwives He may Collate by Lapse He may take competent time to examine the sufficiency and fitness of a Clerk He may give convenient time to persons interested to take notice of Avoidances He is discharged against the true Patron and quit of Disturbance to whom it cannot be imputed if he receive that Clerk that is in pursuance of a Verdict after Inquest in a Jure Patronatus He may have Six Chaplains and every Archbishop may have Eight Chaplains He may unite and consolidate small Parishes and assist the Civil Magistrate in execution of some Statutes concerning Ecclesiastical Affairs And by the Statute of 1 Eliz. cap. 2. any Bishop may at his pleasure joyn and associate himself to the Justices of Oyer and Terminer or to the Justices of Assize at the open and general Sessions to be holden at any place within his Diocess in Causes of the Church And the Statute made 17 Car. 1. c. 27. for the disinabling of persons in Holy Orders to exercise Temporal Jurisdiction or Authority is Repealed by the Statute of 13 Car. 2. cap. 2. whereby they are now enabled to exercise such Temporal Jurisdiction as formerly and is commonly styled the Ordinary of that Diocess where he doth exercise his Episcopal Authority and Jurisdiction In Parliament Bishops as Barons may be present and Vote at the Trial and Arraignment of a Peer only before Sentence of death or loss of Member be pronounced that they may have no hand in blood in any kind they have by Canon Law the Priviledge and Injunction to absent themselves and by Common Law to make Proxies to vote for them 14. ORDINARY according to the acceptation of the Common Law with us is usually taken for him that hath Ordinary Jurisdiction in Causes Ecclesiastical immediate to the King He is in Common understanding the Bishop of the Diocess who is the Supervisor and for the most part Visitor of all his Churches within his Diocess and hath Ordinary Jurisdiction in all the Causes aforesaid for the doing of Justice within his Diocess in jure proprio non per deputationem and therefore it is his care to see that the Church be provided of an able Curate Habet enim Curam Curarum and may execute the Laws of the Church by Ecclesiastical Censures and to him alone are made all Presentations to Churches vacant within his Diocess Ordinarius habet locum principaliter in Episcopo aliis Superioribus qui soli sunt Vniversales in suis Jurisdictionibus sed sunt sub eo alii Ordinarii hi videlicet quibus Competit Jurisdictio Ordinaria de jure privilegio vel consuetudine Lindw cap. Exterior tit de Constitutionib 15. The Jurisdiction of the Ordinary or Bishop as to the Examination of the Clerk or as to the Admission or Institution of him into a Benefice is not Local but it follows the person of the Ordinary or Bishop wheresoever he is And therefore if a Clerk be presented to the Bishop of Norwich to a Church which is void within the Diocess of Norwich who is then in London or if it be to a Bishop of Ireland who is then in England and in London the Ordinary may examine the Clerk or give him Admission or Institution in London And so it was adjudged 16. The Ordinary is not obliged upon a Vacancy to receive the Clerk of him that comes first for as he
the Bishoprick of Winchester contra novi Concilii statuta as the same Author reporteth And this because succeeding Popes had broken Pope Vrban's promise Touching the not sending of Legates into England unless the King should require it And in the time of the next succeeding King Stephen the Pope gained Appeals to the Court of Rome For in a Synod at London Conven'd by Hen. Bishop of Winchester the Pope's Legate it was Decreed That Appeals should be made from Provincial Councils to the Pope Before which time Appellationes in usu non erant saith a Monk of that time donec Henricus Winton Episcopus malo suo dum Legatus esset crudeliter intrusit Thus did the Pope usurp Three main points of Jurisdiction upon Three several Kings after the Conquest for of King William Rufus he could win nothing viz. upon the Conquerour the sending of Legates or Commissioners to hear and determine Ecclesiastical Causes Upon Hen. 1. the Donation and Investures of Bishopricks and other Benefices and upon King Stephen the Appeals to the Court of Rome And in the time of King H. 2. the Pope claimed exemption of Clerks from the Secular Power 2. The high Court of Convocation is called the Convocation of the Clergy and is the highest Court Ecclesiastical where the whole Clergy of both Provinces are either present in Person or by their Representatives They commonly meet and sit in Parliament-time consisting of Two parts viz. the Upper-house where the Archbishops and Bishops do sit and the Lower-house where the Inferiour Clergy do sit This Court hath the Legislative power of making Ecclesiastical Laws is commonly called a National Synod Conven'd by the King 's Writ directed to the Archbishop of each Province for summoning all Bishops Deans Archdeacons Cathedrals and Collegiate Churches assigning them the time and place in the said Writ But one Proctor sent for each Cathedral and Collegiate Church and two for the Body of the inferiour Clergy of each Diocess may suffice The higher House of Convocation or the House of Lords Spiritual for the Province of Canterbury consists of 22 Bishops whereof the Archbishop is President the Lower-house or House of Commons Spiritual consisting of all the Deans Archdeacons one Proctor for every Chapter and two for the Clergy of each Diocess in all 166 persons viz. 22 Deans 24 Prebendaries 54 Archdeacons and 44 Clerks representing the Diocesan Clergy Both Houses debate and transact only such matters as his Majesty by Commission alloweth concerning Religion and the Church All the Members of both Houses of Convocation have the same priviledges for themselves and Menial Servants as the Members of Parliament have The Archbishop of York at the same time and in the like manner holds a Convocation of all his Province at York constantly corresponding debating and concluding the same matters with the Provincial Synod of Canterbury The Antiquity of this Court of Convocation is very great for according to Beda St. Augustine An. 686. assembled in Council the Britain Bishops and held a great Synod The Clergy was never assembled or called together at a Convocation by other Authority than by the King 's Writ Vid. Parl. 18 E. 3. nu 1. Inter Leges Inae An. Dom. 727. A Convocation of the Clergy called Magna servorum Dei frequentia The Jurisdiction of the Convocation is only touching matters meerly Spiritual and Ecclesiastical wherein they proceed juxta Legem Divinam Canones Sanctae Ecclesiae The Lord Coke cites some Ancient Records to prove that the Court of Convocation did not meddle with any thing concerning the Kings Temporal Laws of the Land and thence inferrs That the Statute of 25 H. 8. cap. 19. whereby it is provided That no Canons Constitution or Ordinance should be made or put in execution within this Realm by Authority of the Convocation of the Clergy which were contrariant or repugnant to the King's Prerogative Royal or the Customes Laws and Statutes of this Realm is but declaratory of the old Common Law And by the said Act the Court of Convocation as to the making of new Canons is to have the King's License as also his Royal Assent for the putting the same in execution But towards the end of that Act there is an express Proviso that such Canons as were made before that Act which be not contrariant nor repugnant to the King's Prerogative the Laws Statutes or Customes of the Realm should be still used and executed as they were before the making of that Act. And if any Cause shall depend in contention in any Ecclesiastical Court which shall or may touch the King his Heirs or Successors the party grieved shall or may appeal to the Upper-house of Convocation within fifteen days after Sentence given Remarkable are the Constitutions of Claringdon in the time of King H. 2. occasioned by the Popes claiming Exemption of Clerks from the Secular power so contended for by Thomas Becket then Archbishop of Canterbury against the King as occasioned a convening a Common Council as well of the Bishops as of the Nobility at Claringdon in the time of H. 2. wherein they revived and re-established the Ancient Laws and Customes of the Kingdom for the Government of the Clergy and ordering of Causes Ecclesiastical The principal Heads or Articles whereof were these viz. 1 That no Bishop or Clerk should depart the Realm without the King's License and that such as obtained License should give Sureties That they should not procure any dammage to the King or Realm during their absence in Foreign parts 2 That all Bishopricks and Abbies being void should remain in the Kings hands as his own Demesns until he had chosen and appointed a Prelate thereunto and that every such Prelate should do his Homage to the King before he be admitted to the place 3 That Appeals should be made in Causes Ecclesiastical in this manner viz. From the Archdeacon to the Ordinary from the Ordinary to the Metropolitan from him to the King and no farther 4 That Peter-Pence should be paid no more to the Pope but to the King 5 That if any Clerk should commit Felony he should be hanged if Treason he should be drawn and quartered 6 That it should be adjudged High Treason to bring in Bulls of Excommunication whereby the Realm should be cursed 7 That no Decree should be brought from the Pope to be executed in England upon pain of Imprisonment and Confiscation of Goods 3. Arches or alma Curia de Arcubus so called of Bow-Church in London by reason of the Steeple or Clochier thereof raised at the top with Stone-pillars in fashion like a Bow-bent Arch-wise in which Church this Court was ever wont to be held being the chief and most Ancient Court and Consistory of the Jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Canterbury which Parish of Bow together with twelve others in London whereof Bow is the chief are within the Peculiar Jurisdiction of the said Archbishop in Spiritual Causes and
And the Judgment of Parliament expressed in the Preamble of that Statute of Faculties is very remarkable to this purpose where it is recited that the Bishop of Rome had deceived and abused the Subjects of the Crown of England pretendig and perswading them That he had full power to Dispence with all human Laws Vses and Customes of all Realms in all Causes which be called Spiritual which matter hath been usurped and practised by him and his Predecessors for many years to the great derogation of the Imperial Crown of England For whereas the said Realm of England recognizing no Superiour under God but the King hath been and yet is free from subjection to any mans Laws but only to such as have been devised made and Ordained within this Realm for the weal of the same or to such other as by sufferance of the King and his Progenitors the People of this Realm have taken at their free liberty and by their own consent to be used among them and have bound themselves by long use and custome to the observance of the same not as to the observance of the Laws of any Foreign Prince Potentate or Prelate but as to the accustomed and ancient Laws of this Realm originally established as Laws of the same by the said sufferance consent and custome and not otherwise it standeth with natural equity and good reason that all such human Laws made within this Realm or induced into this Realm by the said Sufferance Consent and Custome should be Dispenced with abrogated amplified or diminished by the King and his Parliament or by such persons as the King and Parliament should authorize c. Vid. 21 H. 7. 4. a. where it is said That certain Priests were deprived of their Benefices by Act of Parliament in the time of R. 2. whereby it hath been concluded that the King of England and not the Pope before the making of the said Statute of Faculties might de jure Dispence with the Ecclesiastical Law in that and other cases For although many of our Ecclesiastical Laws were first devised in the Court of Rome yet they being established and confirmed in this Realm by acceptance and usage are now become English Laws and shall no more be reputed Roman Canons or Constitutions As Rebuffus speaking De Regula Cancellariae Romanae de verisimili notitia Haec Regula says he ubique in Regno Franciae est recepta est Lex Regni effecta observatur tanquam Lex Regni non tanquam Papae Regula Papa eam revocare non potest The Kings of England from time to time in every Age before the time of H. 8. have used to grant Dispensations in Causes Ecclesiastical For whereas the Law of the Church is That every Spiritual person is Visitable by the Ordinary King William the Conqueror by his Charter Dispenced with the exempted the Abbey of Battell from the Visitation and Jurisdiction of the Ordinary in these express words Sitque dicta Ecclesia libera quieta in perpetuum ab omni subjectione Episcoporum quarumlibet personarum dominatione sicut Ecclesia Christi Cantuariensis c. whereby he Dispences with the Law of the Church in that Case Vid. libr. De vera differentia Regiae potestatis Ecclesiasticae Edit 1534. where that whole Charter is recited at large The like Charter was granted to the Abbey of Abingdon by King Kenulphus 1 H. 7. 23 25. and Cawdry's Case Co. par 5. fo 10. a. So likewise every Appropriation doth comprize in it a Dispensation to the Parson Imparsonee to have and retain the Benefice in perpetuity as appears in Grendon's Case Plow Com. 503. In which Act the King by the Common Law shall be always Actor not only as Supream Patron but also as Supream Ordinary as is also observed in Grendon's Case For the King alone without the Pope may make Appropriations 7 E. 3. Fitz. Quare Impedit 19. And in the Case of Malum prohibitum and Malum in se in 11 H. 7. 12. a. it is held That the King may dispence with a Priest to hold Two Benefices and with a Bastard that he may be a Priest notwithstanding the Ecclesiastical Laws which are to the contrary And as he may dispence with those Laws so he may pardon all Offences contrary to these Laws and his Pardon is a barr to all Suits pro salute Animae or reformatione morum and all Suits ex Officio in the Ecclesiastical Court Hall's Case Coke 5. par fo 51. In all Faculties or Dispensations for the holding of Two Benefices granted at the Court of Rome there was always a particular Derogation or Non obstante the right of Patronage of Lay-Patrons and of the right of the King by name express where the Patronage belonged to him otherwise the Faculty was void For by the Canon Law the Lay-Patrons ought to be called to give their Consents in all Cases of that nature And if such a particular Non obstante were not added in the Faculty then there was inserted another Clause viz. Dummodo Patronorum expressus accedat Consensus also by another Clause Authority was always given to the Official or Archdeacon or other Ecclesiastical Minister to put him to whom the Faculty is granted into possession of the Benefice cum acciderit And because by the Canon Law the Patron 's consent was ever requisite in a Commenda for that reason in every Faculty or License granted by the Pope to make a Permutation Union or Appropriation of Churches these words were ever added viz. Vocatis quorum interest which chiefly intends the Patron And which Union and Approbation shall not according to the Common Law be made without the Patron 's assent Vid. 11 H. 7. 8. 6 H. 7. 13. 46 Ass p. 50. Ed. 3. 26. 40 Ed. 3. 26. Grendon's Case Plow Com. 498. a. A Faculty or Dispensation is of such force that if a Clerk be presented to a Benefice with Cure and be Admitted Instituted and Inducted into the same so that the Church is full of him if afterwards he be presented to another Benefice Incompatible or elected to a Bishoprick and before he is Instituted to the second Benefice or be created Bishop he obtain a Faculty or Dispensation to retain the first Benefice Perpetuae Commendae titulo that is for his life that Faculty or Dispensation shall be of such effect that the former Benefice shall not be void by acceptance of the Second or by promotion to the Bishoprick but he shall remain full and perfect Incumbent of the first Benefice during his life In the time of H. 6. when Henry Beaufort Great Uncle to the King being Bishop of Winchester was made a Cardinal and after that purchased from the Pope a Bull Declaratory that notwithstanding he were made Cardinal yet his Bishoprick of Winchester should not be void but that he might retain the same as before yet it was held That the See of Winchester was void by assuming the Cardinalship which
1 Eliz. And it is not within the Statute and although it be within the Commission yet they have not Jurisdiction The words of the Statute are That such Jurisdictions and Priviledges c. as by any Ecclesiastical power have heretofore been or lawfully may be exercised for the Visitation of Ecclesiastical State and Persons and for reformation of the same and for all manner of Errors Heresies Schisms Abuses Offences Contempts and Enormities c. These words extend only to men who stir up Dissentions in the Church as Schisimaticks and new-sangled Men who offend in that kind Henden Serjeant The Suit is there for reformation of Manners and before the new amendment of the Commissions Prohibitions were granted if they meddled with Adultery or in Case of Defamations but now by express words they have power of these matters And that matter is punishable by the Commissioners for two Causes 1 There is within the Act of Parliament by the words annexed all Jurisdictions Ecclesiastical c. 2 It gives power to the Commissioners to exercise that And that is meerly Ecclesiastical being only pro reformatione morum c. The King by his Prerogative having Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction may grant Commissions to determine such things 5 Rep. Ecclesiastical Cases fol. 8. And Richardson said The Statute de Articulis Cleri gave cognizance to the Ordinary for laying violent hands on a Clerk But you affirm That all is given to the Commissioners and thereby they should take all power from the Ordinary But by the Court the Commissioners cannot meddle for a stroke in Church-Land nor pro subtractione Decimarum And yet they have express Authority by their Commission for by that course all the Ordinaries in England should be to no purpose And so upon much debate a Prohibition was granted On an Arrest on Christmas-day it was said by Richardson Chief Justice That upon Arresting a man upon Christmas-day going to Church in the Church-yard He who made the Arrest may be censured in the Star-Chamber for such an Offence Quod Nota. It was also said by Richardson that if a man submit himself out of the Diocess to any Suit he can never have a Prohibition because the Suit was not according to the Statute 23 H. 8. commenced within the proper Diocâ—ss as it was Adjudged Quod Nota It the Ecclesiastical Court proceed in a matter that is meer Spiritual and pertinent to their Court according to the Civil Law although their proceedings are against the Rules of the Common Law yet a Prohibition does not lie As if they refuse a single Witness to prove a Will for the cognizance of that belongs to them And Agreed also That if a man makes a Will but appoints no Executor that that is no Will but void But if the Ordinary commits the Administration with that annexed the Legatary to whom any Legacy is devised by such Will may sue the Administrator for their Legacies in the Ecclesiastical Court Note P. 4. Jac. B. R. Peep's Case a Prohibition was denied where they in the Ecclesiastical Court refused a single Witness in proof of payment of a Legacy After Prohibition if the Temporal Judge shall upon sight of the Libel conceive that the Spiritual Court ought to determine the cause he is to award a Consultation And by the Staâ— of 50 E. 3. c. 4. the Ecclesiastical Judge may proceed by vertue of the Consultation once granted notwithstanding any other Prohibition afterwards if the matter in the Libel be not enlarged or changed B. Administrator of A. makes C. his Executor and dies C. is sued in the Ecclesiastical Court to make an Account of the goods of A. the first Intestate And C. now moves for a Prohibition and had it for an Executor shall not be compel'd to an Account But an Administrator shall be compel'd to Account before the Ordinary Resolved by the Court That a Prohibition shall not be awarded to the Admiral or Ecclesiastical Courts after Sentence Also that a Plea was there pleaded and refused which was Triable at Common Law Note A Prohibition was awarded upon the Statute of 23 H. 8. because the party was sued out of the Diocâ—ss And now a Consultation was prayed because the Interiour Court had remitted that Cause to the Arches and their Jurisdiction also yet a Consultation was denied A Suit was in the Ecclesiastical Court and Sentence passed for one with Costs and nine months after the Costs are Assest and Taxed and then comes a Pardon of 21 Jac. which relates before the taxing of the Costs But afterwards the Sentence and that Pardon was pleaded and allowed in discharge of the Costs Then W. who had recovered sues an Appeal and P. brought a Prohibition and well and no Consultation shall be awarded because by the Court that Pardon relating before the Taxation of Cost had discharged them As 5. Rep. 51. Hall's Case B. and Two others sue upon three several Libels in the Ecclesiastical Court and they joyn in a Prohibition And by the Court that is not good But they ought to have had three several Prohibitions and therefore a Consultation was granted Mich. 26 27 Eliz. C. B. If A. Libels against B. for Three things by one Libel B. may have One or Three Prohibitions Note Dyor 171. 13. By the Statute of 25 H. 8. cap. 19. Appeals to Rome being prohibited it is Ordained That for default of Justice in any of the Courts of the Archbishops of this Realm c. it shall be lawful to Appeal to the King in his High Court of Chancery and thereupon a Commission shall be granted c. And by a Proviso towards the end of that Statute an Appeal is granted to the King in Chancery on Sentences in places exempt in such manner as was used before to the See of Rome So that this Court grounded on the said Commission is properly as well as vulgarly called The Court of Delegates for that the Judges thereof are Delegated to fit by virtue of the Kings said Commission under his Great Seal upon an Appeal to him in Chancery and that specially in Three Causes 1 When a Sentence is given in any Ecclesiastical Cause by the Archbishop or his Official 2 When any Sentence is given in any Ecclesiastical Cause in places exempt 3 When a Sentence is given in the high Court of Admiralty in Suits or Actions Civil and Maritime according to the Civil Law That this Court of Delegates may Excommunicate was Resolved by all the Judges in the Archbishop of Canterbury's Case They may also commit or grant Letters of Administration This Court of Delegates is the highest Court for Civil Affairs that concern the Church for the Jurisdiction whereof it was provided 25 H. 8. That it shall be lawful for any Subject of England in case of defect of Justice in the Courts of the Archbishop of Canterbury to Appeal to the King's Majesty in his Court of Chancery and
that upon such Appeal a Commission under the Great Seal shall be directed to certain persons particularly designed for that business so that from the highest Court of the Archbishop of Canterbury there lies an Appeal to this Court of Delegates Of this Subject of Appeals the Lord Coke says That an Appeal is a Natural defence which cannot be taken away by any Prince or power and in every Case generally when Sentence is given and Appeal made to the Superiour the Judge that did give the Sentence is obliged to obey the Appeal and proceed no further until the Superiour hath examined and determined the cause of Appeal Nevertheless where this Clause Appellatione remota is in the Commission the Judge that gave Sentence is not bound to obey the Appeal but may execute his Sentence and proceed further until the Appeal be received by the Superiour and an Inhibition be sent unto him For that Clause Appellatione remota hath Three notable effects 1 That the Jurisdiction of the Judge à quo is not by the Appeal suspended or stopped for he may proceed the same notwithstanding 2 That for proceeding to Execution or further process he is not punishable 3 That these things that are done by the said Judge after such Appeal cannot be said void for they cannot be reversed per viam Nullitatis But if the Appeal be just and lawful the Superiour Judge ought of right and equity to receive and admit the same and in that case he ought to reverse and revoke all mean Acts done after the said Appeal in prejudice of the Appellant At the Parliament held at Clarendon An. 10 H. 2. cap. 8. the Forms of Appeals in Causes Ecclesiastical are set down within the Realm and none to be made out of the Realm Ne quis appellat ad dominum Papam c. so that the first Article of the Statute of 25 H. 8. concerning the prohibiting of Appeals to Rome is declaratory of the ancient Law of the Realm And it is to be observed says the Lord Coke that the first attempt of any Appeal to the See of Rome out of England was by Anselme Archbishop of Canterbury in the Reign of William Rufus and yet it took no effect Touching the power and Jurisdiction of the Court of Delegates Vid. le Case Stevenson versus Wood. Trin. 10 Jac. B. R. Rot. 1491. in Bulstr Rep. par 2. wherein these Three points are specially argued 1 Whether the Judges Delegates may grant Letters of Administration 2 Whether in their person the King be represented 3 Whether the Court of Delegates may pronounce Sentence of Excommunication or not 14. The High Commission-Court in Causes Ecclesiastical was by Letters Patents and that by force and virtue of the Statute of 1 Eliz. cap. 1. the Title whereof is An Act restoring to the Crown the Ancient Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical c. the High Commissioners might if they were competent that is if they were Spiritual persons proceed to Sentence of Excommunication What the power of this Court was and whether they might in Causes Ecclesiastical proceed to Fine and Imprisonment is at large examined by the Lord Coke in the Fourth part of his Institutes where he reports the Judgment and Resolutions of the whole Court of Common Pleas thereon Pasch 9 Jac. Reg. upon frequent Conferences and mature deliberation set down in writing by the order and command of King James Likewise whom and in what Cases the Ecclesiastical Courts may examine one upon Oath or not there being a penal Law in the Case and whether the saying Quod nemo tenetur seipsum prodere be applicable thereunto Vid. Trin. 13 Jac. B. R. Burroughs Cox c. against the High Commissioners Bulstr par 3. 15. The Statutes of 24 H. 8. and 25 H. 8. do Ordain That upon certain Appeals the Sentence given shall be definitive as to any further Appeal notwithstanding which the King as Supream Governour may after such definitive Sentence grant a Commission of Review or Ad Revidendum c. Sir Ed. Coke gives two Reasons thereof 1 Because it is not restrained by the Statute 2 For that after a definitive Sentence the Pope as Supream Head by the Canon Law used to grant a Commision Ad Revidendum and what Authority the Pope here exercised claiming as Supream Head doth of right belong to the Crown and by the Statutes of 26 H. 8. cap. 1. and 1 Eliz. cap. 1. is annexed to the same Which accordingly was Resolved Trin. 39 Eliz. B. R. Hollingworth's Case In which Case Presidents to this purpose were cited in Michelot's Case 29 Eliz. in Goodman's Case and in Huet's Case 29 Eliz. Also vid. Stat. 8 Eliz. cap. 5. In the Case between Halliwell and Jervoice where a Parson sued before the Ordinary for Tithes and thence he appeals to the Audience where the Sentence is affirmed then the party appeals to the Delegates and there both Sentences are Repealed It was agreed That in such case a Commission Ad Revidendum the Sentences may issue forth but then such a Reviewing shall be final without further Appeal But if the Commissioners do not proceed to the Examination according to the Common Law they shall be restrained by a Prohibition 16. The Court of Peculiars is that which dealeth in certain Parishes lying in several Diocesses which Parishes are exempt from the Jurisdiction of the Bishops of those Diocesses and are peculiarly belonging to the Archbishop of Canterbury Within whose Province there are fifty seven such Peculiars for there are certain peculiar Jurisdictions belonging to some certain Parishes the Inhabitants whereof are exempt sometimes from the Archdeacons and sometimes from the Bishops Jurisdiction 17. If a Suit be in the Ecclesiastical Court for a Modus Decimandi if the Desendant plead payment it shall be tryed there and no Prohibition may be granted for that the Original Suit was there well commenced So if payment be pleaded in a Suit depending in the Ecclesiastical Court for any thing whereof they have the original cognizance But if a man sue for Tithes in the Ecclesiastical Court against J. S. and makes Title to them by a Lease made to him by the Parson and J. S. there also makes Title to them by a former Lease made to him by the same Parson so that the Question there is which of the said Leases shall be preferred In this case a Prohibition shall be granted for they shall not try which of the said Leases shall be preferr'd although they have cognizance of the Original for the Leases are Temporal If a man having a Parsonage Impropriate make a Lease for years of part of the Tithes by Deed and the Deed be denied in the Ecclesiastical Court and Issue taken thereon a Prohibition shall be granted If a Parson compound with his Parishioner for his Tithes and by his Deed grant them to him for a certain Sum for one year according to Agreement and after he
Bishop of Rome had assumed or tooken upon him to be the Spiritual Prince or Monarch of all the World he attempted also to give Laws to all Nations as one real Mark or Signal of his Monarchy but they well knowing Quod ubi non est condendi authoritas ibi non est parendi necessitas did not impose their Laws at first peremptorily on all Nations without distinction but offered them timide precario And therefore he caused certain Rules in the first place to be collected for the Government of the Clergy only which he called Decreta and not Leges vel Statuta These Decrees were published in An. 1150. which was during the Reign of King Stephen And therefore what the Lord Coke observes in the Preface to the Eighth part of his Reports Quod Rogerus Bacon frater ille perquam Eruditus in Libro De impedimentis Sapientiae dicit Rex quidem Stephanus allatis Legibus Italiae in Angliam Publico Edicto prohibuit ne in aliquo detinerentur may probably be conjectured to be meant and intended of those Decrees which were then newly compiled and published Yet these Decrees being received and observed by the Clergy of the Western Churches only for the Eastern Church never received any of these Rules or Canons Kelw. Rep. 7 H. 8. fo 184 the Bishop of Rome attempted also to draw the Laity by degrees into obedience to these Ordinances and to that purpose in the first place he propounds certain Rules or Ordinances for Abstinence or days of Fasting to be observed as well by the Laity as the Clergy which were upon the first Institution thereof called by the mild and gentle name of Regationes as Marsilius Pat. lib. Defensor Pacis par 2. cap. 23. hath observed and thence it seems the Week of Abstinence a little before the Feast of Pentecost was called the Rogation-week that time of Abstinence being appointed at the beginning by that Ordinance which was called Rogatio and not Praeceptum vel Statutum Now when the Laity out of their devotion had received and obeyed these Ordinances of Abstinence then the Bishop of Rome proceeds further De una praesumptione ad aliam transivit Romanus Pontifex as Marsil Pat. there says and made many Rescripts and Orders per Nomen Decretalium which were published in the year 1230. which was in the Fourteenth year of King H. 3. or thereabout Vid. Matth. Par. Hist mag 403. and these were made to bind all the Laity and Sovereign Princes as well as their Subjects in such things as concerned their Civil and Temporal Estates As that no Lay-man should have the Donation of an Ecclesiastical Benefice That no Lay-man should marry within certain Degrees out of the degrees limited by the Levitical Law That all Infants born before Marriage should be adjudged after Marriage Legitimate and capable of Temporal Inheritance That all Clerks should be exempt from the Secular power and others of the like nature But these Decretals being published they were not entirely and absolutely received and obeyed in any part of Christendom but only in the Pope's Temporal Territory which by the Canonists is called Patria obedientiae But on the other hand many of those Canons were utterly rejected and disobeyed in France and England and other Christian Realms which are called Patriae Consuetudinariae As the Canon which prohibited the Donation of Benefices per manum Laicam was ever disobeyed in England France the Kingdom of Naples and divers other Countries and Common-wealths And the Canon to make Infants Legitimate that were born before Marriage was specially rejected in England when in the Parliament held at Merton omnes Comites Barones una voce responderunt Nolumus Leges Angliae mutari quae hucusque usitatae sunt c. And the Canon which exempts Clerks from the Secular power was never fully observed in any part of Christendom Kelw. 7 H. 8. 181. b. which is one infallible Argument That these Ordinances had not their force by any Authority that the Court of Rome had to impose Laws on all Nations without their consent but by the approbation of the people which received and used them For by the same reason whereby they might reject one Canon they might reject all the other Vid. Bodin lib. 1. de Rep. cap. 8. where he saith That the Kings of France on the erection of all Universities there have declared in their Charters that they would receive the Profession of the Civil and Canons to use them at their discretion and not to be obliged by these Laws But as to those Canons which have been received accepted and used in any Christian Realm or Common-wealth they by such acceptation and usage have obtained the force of Laws in such particular Realm or State and are become part of the Ecclesiastical Laws of that Nation And so those which have been embraced allowed and used in England are made by such allowance and usage part of the Ecclesiastical Laws of England By which the interpretation dispensation or execution of these Canons being become Laws of England doth appertain sole to the King of England and his Magistrates within his Dominions and he and his Magistrates have the sole Jurisdiction in such cases and the Bishop of Rome hath nothing to do in the interpretation dispensation or execution of those Laws in England although they were first devised in the Court of Rome No more than the Chief Magistrate of Athens or Lacedemon might claim Jurisdiction in the Ancient City of Rome for that the Laws of the XII Tables were thither carried and imported from those Cities of Greece and no more than the Master of New-Colledge in Oxford shall have Command or Jurisdiction in Kings-Colledge of Cambridge for that the private Statutes whereby Kings-Colledge is governed were for the most part borrowed and taken out of the Foundation-Book of New-Colledge in Oxford And by the same reason the Emperour may claim Jurisdiction in Maritime causes within the Dominions of the King of England for that we have now for a long time received and admitted the Imperial Law for the determination of such Causes Vid. Cawdries Case Co. par 5. and Kelw. Rep. 184. a. Now when the Bishop of Rome perceived that many of his Canons were received and used by divers Nations of Christendom he under colour thereof claimed to have Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in every Realm and State where these Canons were received and sent his Legates with several Commissions into divers Kingdoms to hear and determine Causes according to these Canons which Canons although neither the Pope nor his Ministers at the first venting and uttering thereof dared to call Laws Ne committerent crimen Laesae Majestatis in Principes as Marâ—il Pat. lib. Defensor pacis par 2. cap. 23. observes who also says That these Canons being made by the Pope Neque sunt humanae Leges neque divinae sed documenta quaedam Narrationes yet when he perceived that these Canons were received allowed
had before are Bastards at the Common Law and Muliers by the Civil Law If a Man hath Issue by a Woman and after marry the same Woman the Issue by the Common Law is Bastard and Mulier by the Ecclesiastical Law Likewise if a man espouse a Woman bigg with Child by another Man and within three dayes after she is delivered of Child by the Common Law this is a Mulier and by the Ecclesiastical Law a Bastard If a Woman Elope and hath Issue in Adultery such Issue is a Mulier at the Common Law and a Bastard by the Ecclesiastical Law yet if the Woman continue in Adultery and hath Issue such Issue are Bastards even by the Common Law But by the Law of the Land a man may not be reputed a Bastard who is born after Espousals unless there be some special matter in the Case as aforesaid But if a man who hath a wife doth during her life take another wife and hath Issue by her such Issue are Bastards by both the Laws for the second Marriage is void 20. A Divorce causa Praecontractus doth Bastardize the Issue so also doth a Divorce causa Consaguinitatis likewise if the Divorce be Causa Affinitatis it doth Bastardize the Issue and the Law is the same in case the Divorce be causa Frigiditatis A Man hath Issue a Bastard and after marries the same Woman and hath Issue by her divers Sons and then deviseth all his Goods to his Children Q. whether the Bastard shall take by the devise But if the Mother of the Bastard make such a devise it is clear the Bastard shall take because he is known to be Child of the Mother 21. B. contracted himself to A. afterwards A. was Married to F. and cohabited with him whereupon B. sued A. in the Court of Audience and proved the contract and Sentence was there pronounced that she should Marry the said B. and cohabit with him which she did and they had Issue C. B. and the Father died It was argued by the Civilians that the Marriage betwixt B. and A. was void and that C. B. was a Bastard But it was resolved by the Justices that C. the Issue of B. was legitimate and no Bastard 22. The Case was wherein a Man was divorced causa Fridigitatis and afterwards took another Wife and had Issue it was argued by the Civilians and also by the Justices whether the Issue were Bastard or not it was adjudged that the Issue by the second Wife was not a Bastard For that by the Divorce the Marriage was dissolved à vinculo Matrimonii and each of them might Marry again But admit that the second Marriage was voidable yet it good till it be dissolved and so by consequence the Issue born during the Coverture is a lawful Issue 23. Upon an information in the Castle-chamber in Ireland against the Bishop of K. and C. B. and others that by Practice and Combination and by undue course of proceedings they endeavoured to prove the said C. B. who was ever before reputed a Bastard to be the legitimate or lawful Son and Heir of G. B. Esq to the disherison and defamation of E. B. who was the sole Daughter and Heir of the said G. B. And upon Oier of this cause the Case appear'd to be this viz. About twenty six years before the exhibiting of this Bill the said G. B. had Issue the said C. B. on the Body of one J. D. who during the life of G. B. was not reputed his Wife but his Concubine and the said C. B. for all the time aforesaid was only accounted the natural Son of G. B. but not for legitimate Afterwards viz. sixteen years after the birth of C. B. his Mother being then living G. B. took to Wife a Lady of good Estate and Reputation with the assent of her Friends by whom he had Issue the said E. B. and died After the death of the said G. B. the said C. B. his reputed Son nor his Mother who was yet living said nothing by the space of nine years but at last they practiced and combined with the said Bishop of K. being of their Kin and with many others to prove the legitimation of the said C. B. by an irregular and undue course to the intent to bastardize and disinherit the said E. B. according to which practice and combination the Bishop without any Suit commenced or moved in any of the Kings Temporal Courts or any Writ directed to him to certifie Bastardy or Legitimation in that Case and which is more without any Libel exhibited in his Ecclesiastical Court touching that matter of his own will and pleasure privately and not convocatis convocandis nine years after the death of the said G. B. took the depositions of many Witnesses to prove that the said G. B. twenty nine years before had lawfully Married and took to Wife the said J. D. Mother of the said C. B. and that the said C. B. was the legitimate and lawful Son and Heir of the said G. B. And these depositions so taken the said Bishop caused to be engross'd and reduced into the form of a solemn Act and having put his Signature and Seal to that Instrument delivered the same to C. B. who published it and under colour of that Instrument or Act declared himself to be the Son and lawful Heir of the said G. B. c. And for this practice and misdemeanour the said Bishop of K. and others were censured and thereupon these points were resolved 1. That although all Matrimonial causes have of a long time been determinable in the Ecclesiastical Courts and are now properly within the jurisdiction and cognizance of the Clergy yet ab initio non fuit sic For causes of Matrimony as well as cause Testamentary were heretofore civil Causes and appertaining to the civil Magistrate as is well known to all Civilians until the Christian Emperors and Kings as an honour to the Prelates of the Clergy did grant and allow unto them the cognizance and jurisdiction of these Cases And therefore the King of England who is and of right ever was the Fountain of all Justice and Jurisdiction in all Causes as well Ecclesiastical as Civil within his own Dominions although that he allow the Prelates of the Church to exercise their several Jurisdictions in those Causes which properly appertain to their cognizance yet by the Rules of the Common Law he hath a superintendency over their proceedings with power of direction how they shall proceed and of restraint and correction if they do not proceed duly in some cases as is evident by the Writs of several natures directed to Bishops by which the King commands them to certifie Bastardy Excommunication Profession Accouplement en Loyal Matrimony De admit Clericis de Cautione admittenda c. as also by the Writs of Prohibition Consultation and Attachment upon a Prohibition 2. It was resolved that
the question of Bastardy or Legitimacy ought to be first moved in the Kings Temporal Court and thereon Issue ought to be joyned there and then it ought to be transmitted by the Kings Writ to the Ecclesiastical Court to be examined and tried there and thereupon the Bishop shall make his Certificate to the King's Court to which Certificate being made in due form of Law such credit is given that the whole World shall be bound and stopt thereby But on the other side if any Suit to prove Bastardy or Legitimacy be first commenced in the Ecclesiastical Court before any Question of that matter hath been moved in he Kings Temporal Court in that Case Prohibition lies to restrain such Suit To this purpose was Corbet's Case cited 22 Ed. 4. Fitz. Consultation 6. Sir Robert Corbet had Issue two Sons Robert and Roger Robert the eldest Son being within the age of fourteen years took to Wife Matild with whom he cohabited till he came of full Age and they publickly known and reputed for Husband and Wife yet afterwards Robert the eldest Son doth dismiss the said Matild and she living doth Marry one Lettice and having Issue a Son by the said Lettice dies after his death Lettice doth publish and declare openly that she is the lawful Wife of Robert and that his Son was a Mulier and legitimate Whereupon Roger the younger Son of Sir Robert Corbet doth commence a Suit in the Ecclesiastical Court to reverse the Marriage between Lettice and Robert and to put Lettice to silence c. wherefore Lettice doth purchase a prohibition Whereupon Roger sets forth the whole matter and prays a consultation which was denied him and for this reason chiefly viz. for that the Suit in the Ecclesiastical Court was to Bastardize the Issue between Lettice and Robert and to prove Roger to be Heir to Robert and the Original Action of Bastardy shall not be first moved in the Ecclesiastical Court but in the Temporal Court c. And to make this point yet the more clear two Cases put by Bracton lib. 5. tit de exceptionib c. 6. were remembred 1 B. having Issue of the Body of a Feme-Inheretrix born before Marriage under colour whereof he claimed to be Tenant by the Courtesie but being for that cause barr'd in an Assize brought by him against A. he obtain'd the Popes Bull and by authority thereof commenced his Suit in the Ecclesiastical Court to prove his Issue legitimate quod facere non debuit as Bracton there saith and therefore prohibition was granted to stay the Suit shewing the whole matter Et quod praedictus B. ad deceptionem Curiae nostrae ad infirmandum judicium in curia nostra factum trahit-ipsum A. in placitum coram vobis in Curia Christianitatis authoritate Literarum domini Papae ad praedictum puerum legitimandum c. Et cum non possint Judices aliqui de legitimatione cognoscere nisi fuerit loquela prius in curia nostra incepta per breve ibi Bastardia objecta postea ad Curiam Christianitatis transmissa vobis prohibemus quod in placito illo ulterius non procedatis c. And in the same Chapter Bracton hath the form of another Prohibition which makes the difference before put more evident Rex talibus judicibus c. Ostensum est nobis ex parte A. c. quod in causa successionis haereditatis petitione debet prius moveri placitum in curia nostra cum ibi objecta fuit Bastardia tunc deinde transmitti debet recordum loquelae cognitio Bastardia ad curiam Christianitatis ut ibi ad mandatum nostrum de legitimitate inquiratur quod quidem in hac parte non est observatum Et cum hoc sit manifeste contra Consuetudinem Regni nostri c. vobis prohibemus c. whereby it is very evident that if the Ecclesiastical Court proceed to the examination of Bastardy or Legitimation without direction of the Temporal Court it is to be restrained by a Prohibition 3. As the Ecclesiastical Judge may not enquire of Bastardy or Legitimation without special direction or command of the King so when he hath received the Kings Writ to make such Inquisition he ought not to surcease for any Appeal or Inhibition but ought to proceed until he hath certified it into the Kings Court and this also appears by Bracton in the forecited place c. 14. Cum autem Judex Ecclesiasticus Inquisitionem fecerit non erit ab eo appellandum nec à petente nec à tenente à petente non quia talem Jurisdictionem talem judicem elegit à tenente non qui sic posset causam in infinitum protrahere de judice in judicem usque ad Papam sic posset Papa de Laico feodo indirecte cognoscere See also to this purpose 39 E. 3. 20. a. in a Writ of Dower where Ne unques occouple en loyal Matrimony was pleaded and Issue thereupon joyn'd the Writ issued to the Bishop to certifie who certified that he could do nothing by reason of an Inhibition which came to him out of the Arches This return was held insufficient for it was there said that he ought not to surcease from doing the Kings command by reason of any Inhibition 4. Lastly it was said that the very cause and reason why the Ecclesiastical Judge may not enquire of Legitimation or Bastardy before that he hath received direction or a mandate out of the Kings Temporal Court doth consist in this that the Ecclesiastical Court never hath Jurisdiction or power to intermeddle with Temporal Inheritance directly or indirectly It being observed that Christ himself refused to meddle with a Cause of that nature when upon request made to him Luke 12. Magister dic fratri meo ut dividat mecum haereditatem he answer'd Quis me constituit judicem aut divisorem super vos And therefore in the time of King H. 3. when the usurped Jurisdiction of the Pope was elevated much higher than ever before or since in the Dominions of the King of England Pope Alex. the third having granted a Commission to the Bishops of Winchester and Exon to enquire de Legitima nativitate of one Agatha the Mother of one Robert de Ardenna and if she were found legitimate then to restore to the said Robert the possession of certain Lands whereof he was dispossess'd being informed that the King of England was greatly offended at the said commission he revoked and countermanded it in the point of the restitution of possession knowing and confessing that the establishment of Possessions belonged to the King and not to the Church Which Case is reported in the Canon Law Decretal Antiq. Collect. 1. lib. 4. tit Qui filii sunt legitimi cap. 4. and cap. 7. where in the 4 th Chapt. the Commission and in the seventh Chapt. the revocation or countermand appears in express terms CHAP. XXXVI Of Divorce as also of Alimony 1. What Divorce
Vrbis Cantuar. Antiq. pag. 362 363. ubi de Decano Christianitatis But the Deans here specially meant and intended are only such as with the Chapters according to the ancient and genuine use thereof are as Senatus Episcopi to assist the Bishop in his Jurisdiction Cathedral Churches being the first Monuments of Christianity in England So Dr. Hacket in Parliament 1640. The Office and Ecclesiastical Dignity of Archdeacons which you next meet with in this Abridgment is of very great Antiquity There was a sharp Contest above Five hundred years since in the time of King H. 2. between the Archdeacons and the Priors of Winchester and Ely touching the Presentation of their Bishops Elect unto the Metropolitan in order to their Consecration wherein by the Interlocutory of the said Metropolitan the Priors had the Victory Hora congrua Consecrationis instante R. Wintoniensis R. Elyensis Archidiaconi cum Officiales Episcoporum dicantur ad suum spectare contendebant Officium Electiones c. praesentare Metropolitano W. Wintoniensis S. Elyensis Priores in contrarium sentiebant quam enim in Ecclesiis Cathedralibus ubi Canonici divinis mancipantur obsequiis Decani sibi vindicant dignitatem hanc si Monachorum Conventus in Episcopali sede praemineat sibi jure possunt vendicare Priores Sed ut omnis in posterum amputetur occasio Litigandi de Interlocutoria Metropolitani sententia c. Wintoniensis Elyensis Electiâ— ad Priorum suorum praesentationem recepti ad Priorum suorum postulationem Episcopi Consecrati sunt Radulph de Diceto Imag. Hist. By the 25th Canon of the Council of Lateran under Pope Alexander it was Ordained That an Archdeacon in his Visitation should not exceed the numqer of Five or Seven Horsemen for his Retinue Chron. Gervas de Temp. H. 2. And as to the Visitation-Articles every Bishop and Archdeacon heretofore framed a Model thereof for themselves but at the Convocation in the year 1640. a Body thereof was composed for the publick use of all such as exercised Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction And by the foresaid Canon of the Council of Lateran it was further Ordained That no Archdeacon in his Visitation should presume to exact from the Clergy more than was justly due Archidiaconi autem sive Decani nullas exactiones in Presbyteros seu Clericos exercere praesumant Notwithstanding what toleration the Law allows as to Archbishops Bishops Archdeacons c. as to the number of their Retinue in their Visitations yet therein respect is ever to be had to the condition of the Churches Persons and Places Visited as may plainly appear by the express words of the Canon aforesaid viz. Sane quod de numero evectionis secundum tolerantiam dictum est in illis Locis poterit observari in quibus ampliores sunt redditus Ecclesiasticae facultates In pauperibus autem Locis tantam volumus teneri mensuram ut ex accâ—ssu majorum minores non debeant gravari ne sub tali indulgentia illi qui paucioribus Equis uti solebant hactenus plurium sibi credant potestatem indultam So that no Archdeacon or other having Right of Visitation ought by what the Law allows them in that case to exercise their power in this matter beyond what the condition of the place Visited will reasonably admit In all Visitations of Parochial Churches made by Bishops and Archdeacons the Law hath provided that the Charge thereof should be answered by the Procurations then due and payable by the Inferiour Clergy wherein Custome as to the Quantum shall prevail but the undue Demands and supernumerary Attendants of Visitors have Anciently as well as in Later times given the occasion of frequent Contests and Complaints For prevention whereof it was Ordained by the 25th Canon of the Council of Lateran under Pope Alexander circa An. 1179. in haec verba viz. Cum quidam Fratrum Coepiscoporum nostrorum ita graves in Procurationibus subditis suis existunt ut pro hujusmodi causa interdum ipsa Ecclesiastica Ornamenta subditi compellantur exponere longi temporis victum brevis hora consumat Quocirca statuimus Quod Archiepiscopi Parochias Visitantes pro diversitate Provinciarum facultatibus Ecclesiarum 40 vel 50 evectionis Numerum Episcopi 20 vel 30 Cardinales vero 20 vel 25 nequaquam excedunt Archidiaconi vero Quinque aut Septem Decani Constituti sub Episcopis Duobus Equis contenti existant Prohibemus etiam ne subditos suos talliis exactionibus Episcopi gravare praesumant Archidiaconi autem sive Decani nullas exactiones vel tallias in Presbyteros seu Clericos exercere praesumant vid. Chron. Gervas de Temp. H. 2. col 1455. can 25. whereby it is evident that these Procurations ought to be so moderated by the Bishops as that they may not become a burthen or grievance to the Clergy The lawfulness of these Episcopal and Archidiaconal Rights of Procurations are not to be called into question at this day for in all the Establishments and Ordinations of Vicarages upon the Ancient Appropriations of Churches you shall find these Procurations excepted and reserved in statu Quo As appears by these of Feversham and Middleton when by William the Conqueror they were Appropriated to the Abbey of St. Austins as also by these of Wivelsberg Stone and Brocland in Kent when they were Appropriated to the same Abbey by the Charter of King Ed. 3. and in that of the Parish of Stone aforesaid Pentecostals by name are reserved in these words Nihilominus solvet Procurationem debitam Archidiacono Cantuariensi Visitanti expensas pro Pentecostalibus faciendis vid. Chron. W. Thorne Appropria Eccles col 2089. Hist Angl. What Procurations the Archbishop of Messena who arrived in England as the Popes Legate in the year 1261. exacted and extorted from the Bishops and Abbots with great violence in the Reign of King H. 3. you may find in Matthew Paris But by the Fourth Canon of the Council at Rome under Pope Alex. 3. An. 1180. it was Ordained That Bishops and Archbishops in their Visitations should not overcharge the Church of their Bounds with unnecessary charges and expences specially the Churches that are poor No sooner had Princes in Ancient times assign'd and limited certain Matters and Causes controversal to the cognizance of Bishops and to that end dignified the Episcopal Order with an Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction but the multiplicity and emergency of such affairs requir'd for the dispatch and management thereof the assistance of such subordinate Ordinaries as being experienc'd in the Laws adapted to the nature of such Causes might prove a sufficient Expedient to prevent the avocation of Bishops by reason of such Litigious interpositions from the discharge of the more weighty Concerns of that Sacred Function Hence it is supposed that the Ecclesiastical Office of Diocesan Chancellors Commissaries and Officials originally came into use and practice the place of their Session anciently styled the Bishops
West-Saxons in the borders of Worcester and Herefordshire under an Oak thereby tacitly reproving the Idolatry of the Pagan Britains who acted their Superstitions under an Oak as the Learned Sr. H. Spelman observes In the Tenth Century King Edward the Elder Son of King Alfred called a Synod at Intingford where he confirmed the same Ecclesiastical Constitutions which King Alured had made before Many Councils were Conven'd during the Reign of King Athelstan as at Exiter Feversham Thunderfield London and at Great Lea which last is of most account in regard of the Laws therein made specially that concerning the payment of Tithes the which you may peruse in the Learned Sr. H. Spelm. Concil p. 405. During the Reign of King Edgar Hoel Dha held a National Council for all Wales at Tyquin which was wholly in favour of the Clergy this Council was held when Dunst in was Archbishop of Canterbury in whose time there were Two other Councils conven'd the one at Cartlage in Cambridgshire the other at Caln in Wiltshire After this William the Conqueror conven'd a Council of his Bishops at Winchester wherein himself was personally present with two Cardinals sent from Rome in this Council Stigand Archbishop of Canterbury was deposed and Lâ—â—frank a Lombard substituted in his room During the Reign of King Henry the First Anselm Archbishop of Canterbury summoned a Council at Westminster which Excommunicated all Married Priests half the Clergy at that time being Married or the Sons of Married Priests During the Reign of King Stephen Albericus Bishop of Hostia sent by Pope Innocent into England conven'd a Synod at Westminster wherein it was concluded That no Priest c. should have a Wife or a Woman in his house on pain of being sent to Hell Also that their Transubstantiated God should dwell but Eight days in the Box for fear of being Worm-eaten or moulded Under the Reign of King Henry the Second who disclaimed the Popes authority refused to pay Peter-pence and interdicted all Appeals to Rome a Synod was called at Westminster wherein was a great Contest between the two Archbishops of Canterbury and York for Precedency York appeals to Rome the Pope interposes and to end old Divisions makes a new distinction entituling York Primate of England and Canterbury Primate of all England Under the Reign of King Henry the Third a Council was held at Oxford under Stephen Langton Archbishop of Canterbury wherein many Constitutions were made as against Excess of demands for Procurations in Visitations against Pluralities Non-Residence and other abuses of the Clergy In the Ninth year of King Edward the First John Peckham Archbishop of Canterbury held a Council at Lambeth with his Suffragans some account whereof Walsingham gives us in these words viz. Frater Johannes Peckham Cantuariensis Archiepiscopus ne nihil fecisse videretur convocat Concilium apud Lambeth in quo non Evangelii Regni Dei praedicationem imposuit sed Constitutiones Othonis Ottobonis quondam Legatorum in Anglia innovans jussit eas ab omnibus servari c. Walsing in Ed. 1. He then made Sixteen Ecclesiastical Laws which are inserted among the Provincial Constitutions After this he summoned another Council of his Clergy at Reading wherein he propounded the drawing of all Causes concerning Advowsons to the Ecclesiastical Courts and to cut off all Prohibitions from the Temporal Courts in Personal Causes but upon the Kings express Command to desist from it this Council was dissolved Parker de Antiq. Eccles Anglic. fo 205. An 1290. During the Reign of King Henry the Fourth Thomas Arundel Archbishop of Canterbury conven'd a Synod at St. Pauls Church Lond. wherein the King joyned with them in punishing all Opposers of the Religion received Trussel de vita H. 4. Under King Henry the Fifth an Universal Synod of all the Bishops and Clergy was called at London where it was determined That the day of St. George and also of St. Dunstan should be a double Feast in holy Church In the same Kings Reign was a Convocation held at London conven'd by Henry Chichley Archbishop of Canterbury wherein were severe Constitutions made against the Lollards In the Reign of King Henry the Seventh a Synod was held at London by John Morton Archbishop of Canterbury to redress the Excess of the London Clergy in Apparel and frequenting of Taverns We had almost omitted the Synod in England An. 1391. under the Reign of King Richard the Second Simon Sudbury then Archbishop of Canterbury in which Synod it was Ordain'd That whosoever Appealed to Rome besides Excommunication should lose all his Goods and be Imprisoned during his Life vid. Hist of the Church of Great Britain p. 117. A Modern and Ingenious yet unfortunate Author well observes a Fourfold difference or distinction of Synods or Convocations in this Realm in reference to the several manners of their Meeting and degrees of their Power The First he states in point of Time before the Conquest The Second since the Conquest and before the Statute of Praemunire The Third after that Statute but before another made in the Reign of King H. 8. The Fourth after the 25th of the said King 1 Before the Conquest the Popes power prevailed not over the Kings of England who were then ever present Personally or Virtually at all Councils wherein matters both of Church and State were debated and concluded Communi consensu tam Cleri quam Populi Episcoporum Procerum Comitum nec non omnium Sapientum Seniorum populorumque totius Regni 2 After the Conquest but before the Statute of Praemunire the Archbishops used upon all emergent Cases toties quoties at their own discretions to assemble the Clergy of their respective Provinces where they pleased continuing and dissolving them at their pleasure which they then did without any leave from the King whose Canons and Constitutions without any further Ratifification were in that Age obligatory to all subjected to their Jurisdiction Such it seems were all the Synods from Lanfranck to Thomas Arundel Archbishop of Canterbury in which Arundels time the Statute of Praemunire was Enacted 3 After which Statute which much restrained the Papal power and subjected it to the Laws of the Land the Archbishops called no more Convocations by their sole and absolute Command but at the pleasure of the King by whose Writ and Precept only they were now and henceforth Summoned Of this Third sort of Convocations were all those kept by and from Thomas Arundel unto Thomas Cranmer or from the 16th of R. 2. unto the 25th of King H. 8. These Convocations also did make Canons as in Lindwoods Constitutions which were Obligatory although confirmed by no other Authority than what was meerly Synodical 4 The last sort of Convocations since the said Statute called the 25th of King H. 8. That none of the Clergy should presume to attempt alledge claim or put in ure any Constitutions or Ordinances Provincial or Synodals or any â—â—her Canons Constitutions or Ordinances Provincial by
as Deacons and Curates in places appointed 2. Under this Name or Appellation of Bishops are contained Bishops Primates Metropolitans Patriarchs and Summus Pontifex Dist 21. c. 1. And the Presbyters also C. Legimus § 1. Dist 93. Spec. de Instr Edit Sect. 14. vers de Episcopo and for such commonly used and taken in the New Testament l. 14. c. de Episc Cler. In some Acts of Parliament we find the Bishop to be called Ordinary and so taken at the Common Law as having Ordinary Jurisdiction in Causes Ecclesiastical albeit in the Civil Law whence that word Ordinarius is taken it signifies any Judge authorized to take Cognizance of Causes proprio suo jure as he is a Magistrate and not by way of Deputation or Delegation The word Ordinary doth chiefly take place in a Bishop and other Superiours who alone are Universal in their Jurisdictions yet under this word are comprized also other Ordinaries viz. such as to whom Ordinary Jurisdiction doth of right belong whether by Priviledge or by Custome Lindw de Constit c. Exterior ver Ordinarii The Pallium Episcopale or Bishops Pall mentioned as Sr. Ed. Coke observes in some Statutes and many Records and Histories is a Hood of white Wool to be worn as Doctors Hoods upon the Shouldiers with Four Crosses woven into it c. for the Form and Colours whereof vid. Antiq. Brit. Eccles fo 1. This Pallium Episcopale is the Arms belonging to the See of Canterbury vid. Cassan de glo mun p. 4. fo 103. a. 26. Consid ubi multa Legas de Pallio Henry Dean the 65th Archbishop of Canterbury An. 1502. had Pallium Archiepiscopatus Insigne sent him from Pope Alexander 6. by his Secretary Adrian which by the Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry Authorized thereto by the Pope was presented him at Lambeth in these words viz. Ad honorem Dei Omnipotentis c. Tibi tradimus Pallium de Corpore beati Petri sumptum plenitudinem videlicet Pontificalis Officii c. whereupon he swore Canonical obedience to the Apostolical See of Rome 3. The Kings of England were Anciently the Founders of all the Archbishopricks and Bishopricks in this Realm and also in Wales the Bishops thereof were Originally of the Foundation of the Princes of Wales Bishops in England originally were Donative per traditionem Baculi Pastoralis Annuli until King John by his Charter granted that they should be Eligible Chart. 25. Jan. An. Reg. 17. De Commuâ—i Consensu Baronum after which came in the Congé d'Eslire And at this day the Bishopricks in Ireland are Donative Rolls 342. The Patronage of all Bishopricks is in the King so as that he gives leave to the Chapters to chuse them In Ancient times the King gave the Bishopricks and then afterwards gave leave to the Chapters to chuse them as aforesaid The learned Serjeant Roll in that part of his Abridgment touching this Subject makes mention of 1 E. 1. Rot. Clauso Memb. 11. in dorso where there is this Protestation made by the King Cum Ecclesia Cathedralis viduatur de jure debeat soleat de Consuetudine provideri per Electionem Canonicam ab ejusmodi potissimum Celebrandam Collegiis Capitulis personis ad quos jus pertinet petita tamen prius ab Illustri Rege Angliae super hoc Licentia obtenta demum Celebrata Electione persona Electa eidem Regi habeat Praesentari ut idem Rex contra personam ipsam possit proponere si quid rationabile habeat contra eum And the Protestation goes further That in case the Pope makes Provision without such Canonical Election the King shall not be obliged to give him his Temporalties yet of grace for the time present he give the Temporalties to the Abbot Elect of Canterbury Thus the Election of Bishops by Deans and Chapters began by the grant of the King but the Grant was to Elect after License first had and obtained as appears by the Stat. of 25 Ed. 3. Stat. de Provisoribus Rastal 325 d. And King John was the first that granted it by his Charter dated 15 Jan. An. 16. William Rufus K. after the Archbishop of Canterbury's death kept the See without an Archbishop for the space of four years and then assum'd divers other Ecclesiastical Promotions into his own hands that were then vacant putting to Sale divers Rights and Revenues of the Church But King H. 1. made a Law against Reservations of Ecclesiastical Possessions upon Vacancies In the time of Edward the Confessor the Prelates used to receive Investitute from the King by giving them the Pastoral Staff and a Ring And so it was used in the time of H. 1. but Suffragans were invested only by the Ring without the Staff for that they are not Bishops so fully and compleatly as the other 4. To the Creation of Bishops are requisite Election Confirmation Consecration and Investiture Upon the vavancy of a See the King grants his License under his Great Seal to the Dean and Chapter of such vacant Cathedral to proceed to an Election of such a person as by his Letters Missive he shall nominate and appoint to succeed in such vacant Archbishoprick or Bishoprick which Election must be within twenty days next after their receiving such License or Letters Missive upon failure whereof they run the danger of a Praemunire Or if above twelve days after their receipt thereof the Election be deferr'd the King may by his Letters Patent nominate or present to such vacant Bishoprick to the Archbishop or Metropolitan of that Province wherein such See is void or unto one Archbishop and two other Bishops or to four such Bishops as his Majesty shall think fit in case upon such Nomination or Presentment by the King the default of Election by the Dean and Chapter be to the Office and Dignity of a Bishop Otherwise if they Elect according to his Majesties pleasure in his Letters Missive the Election is good and upon their Certificate thereof unto his Majesty under their Common Seal the person so Elected is reputed and called Lord Bishop Elect yet is he not thereby compleat Bishop to all intents and purposes for as yet he hath not Potestationem Jurisdictionis neque Ordinis nor can have the same untill his Confirmation and Consecration for which Reason it is that if after such Election and before Consecration a Writ of Right be brought in the Court of a Mannor belonging to such Bishoprick it is not directed Episcopo but Ballivis of the Bishop Elect. The order of making a Bishop consists chiefly in these Eight things viz. 1. Nomination 2. Congé d'Eslire 3. Election 4. Royal Assent 5. Confirmation 6. Creation 7. Consecration 8. Installation Vid. Grendon's Case in Plowd Trin. 17 Jac. B. R. Sobrean Teige vers Kevan Roll. Rep. par 2. The Creation of a Bishop is in this Solemn
Otherwise it is where the Archdearonry is only by Contract or Covenant made between the Bishop and the Archdeacon for in that case if the Bishop so intermeddle within the Jurisdiction of such Archdeacon or hold Plea within the same he can have but an Action of Covenant against the Bishop and no Prohibition lies in that case The Cognizance which the Archdeacon hath is of matters meerly Ecclesiastical to which end he or his Commissary may hold his Court where and in what places the Archdeacon either by Prescription or Composition hath Jurisdiction in Spiritual Causes within his Archdeaconry and from him the Appeal is to the Diocesan 3. An Archdeaconryship being only matter of Function and as supposed not properly Local nor any Indenture made of it it hath been some question heretofore whether a Quare Impedit doth lie of it or not But it was held in the Affirmative for that an Archdeacon hath Locum in choro The power of an Archdeacon was derived from the Bishop and to him he is subordinate To which purpose the opinion of the Court in Hutton's Case upon a Quare Impedit was That if a Suit be before an Archdeacon whereof by the Statute of 23 H. 8. the Ordinary may license the Suit to a higher Court that the Archdeacon cannot in such case balk his Ordinary and send the Cause immediately into the Arches for he hath no power to give a Court but to remit his own Court and to leave it to the next for since his power was derived from the Bishop to whom he is subordinate he must yield it to him of whom he received it and it was said in that Case that so it had been ruled heretofore 4. If after the Clerk hath been presented by the Patron and Admitted and Instituted by the Bishop the Archdeacon shall refuse to Induct him into the Benefice an Action upon the Case lieth for the Clerk against the Archdeacon He hath power to keep a Court which is called the Court of the Archdeacon or his Commissary And this Court is to be holden where and in what places the Archdeacon either by Prescription or Composition hath Jurisdiction in Spiritual Causes within his Archdeaconry And from him the Appeal is to the Diocesan 5. Although by the Canon Law if one having a Benefice with Cure of Souls accepts an Archdeaconry the Archdeaconry is void yet it is conceived that upon the Stat. of 21 H. 8. 13. the Law is qualified in that point by reason of a Proviso there viz. Provided that no Deanary Archdeaconry c. be taken or comprehended under the Name of a Benefice having Cure of Souls in any Article above-specified and to this Opinion did Wray and the other Justices incline in Vnderhill's Case And indeed an Archdeaconry by the express Letter of that Statute is exempt from being comprehended under the name of a Benefice with Cure for the words are That no Deanary Archdeaconry Chancellorship Treasurership Chantership or Prebend in any Cathedral or Collegiate Church nor Parsonage that hath a Vicar endowed nor any Benefice perpetually Appropriate shall be taken or comprehended under the name of a Benefice having Cure of Souls 6. By the Ecclesiastical Constitutions and Canons of the Church of England no Archdeacon nor indeed any other Ecclesiastical Judge may suffer any general Process of Quorum Nomina to issue out of his Court Except the Names of those to be cited be first expresly entered by the Register or his Deputy under such Process and both Process and Names first subscribed by such Archdeacon or other Ecclesiastical Judge or his Deputy with his Seal thereto affixed And in places where both the Bishop and Archdeacon do by Prescription or Composition visit at several times in one and the same year the Archdeacon or his Official shall within one month next after the Visitation ended that year and the Presentments received certifie under his hand and Seal to the Bishop or his Chancellor the Names and Crimes of all such as are presented in his said Visitation to the end the Chancellor may not Convent the same person for the same Crime for which he is presented to the Archdeacon which course the Chancellor is in like manner to observe in reference to the Archdeacon after the Bishops Visitation ended The which was Ordained to prevent the Prosecution of the same party for the same fault in divers Ecclesiastical Courts And in cases of remitting Causes from the Inferiour Judge the Archdeacon cannot remit the Cause to the Archbishop but he must remit it to his Bishop and he to the Archbishop Trin. 11 Jac. 7. The Archdeacon within the Jurisdiction of his Archdeaconry may by vertue of his Office have his Visitation if he so please or need shall require once every year but of necessity he is to have his Triennial Visitation Lindw de Offic. Archid. c. 1. verb. Visitatione gloss But whether of Common right and by the Jus Commune the Archdeacon may Visit within the Jurisdiction of his Archdeaconry is some question yet resolved by distinguishing whether the Visitation be made per modum Serutationis simplicis by the Archdeacon as the Bishops Vicar and so he may Visit of Common Right but if in such Enquiries he take upon him nomine suo proprio to correct Faults other than such small ones as wherein Custome may warrant him in such case it is held that he hath not power of Visitation de jure communi Lindw ibid. And in all such things as belong to his Visitation he hath Jurisdiction and by Custome over Lay-persons as well as over the Clergy It seems therefore he may do all such things as without the doing and dispatch whereof his Jurisdiction could not clearly appear L. cui Jurisdictio ff de Jurisd om Jud. and therefore wherever he may take cognizance of a matter there he may also give sentence and condemn Extr. de Caus Poss propr c. cum Super. de Offic. Deleg c. ex Literis which is supposed to hold true by Custome and inasmuch as the cognizance and reformation of such matters do belong to the Ecclesiastical Court whence it is that an Archdeacon may impose a penalty on Lay-men for the not repairing their Parish-Church within his Jurisdiction Extr. eod c. ult Extr. de Offic. Ord. c. 1. Lindw ubi supr verb. Imperitiam For it is expresly enjoyned and ordained That Archdeacons and their Officials shall at their Visitation of Churches take the condition of the Fabrick thereof into special consideration specially of the Chancel and in case there be need of Reparations shall set or fix a time within which such Reparations shall be finished which time is likewise to be set under a certain penalty Lindw de Offic. Archidiac c. Archidiaconi 8. By the Canon Law a man cannot be an Archdeacon under the age of 25 years Can. Nullus in propositum 60 Dist And by the Council of Trent he ought to
The Case of Tithes is parallel to the Case of Proxies and agrees therewith in all points For as Instruction was the cause of the payment of Tithes So Visitation which is ever accompanied with Instruction Littl. ca. de Frankalmoigne 30. b. was the cause of the Proxies And as Tithes are now due and payable to Lay-persons which have purchased Impropriate Rectories although they do not give any Instruction So Proxies are due and payable to Ordinaries out of the Impropriations and Religious houses dissolved although their Visitation ceases And as none can prescribe de non decimando as is commonly held in the Common Law So the Canon Law hath a Rule Quod nulla est adversus Procurationem praescriptio Inst Jur. Canon lib. 2. cap. de Censibus Also Proxies which resemble Tithes in other points may be well compared to them in this point viz That they shall not be subject to extinguishment by unity of possession CHAP. X. Of Diocesan Chancellors Commissaries Officials and Consistories 1. A Description of the Office of such Chancellors and how they differ from the Bishops Commissaries 2. The Antiquity and necessary use of such Chancellors 3. What the Canons Ecclesiastical require touching their Office 4. Whether a Divine that is not a Civilian may be a Chancellour 5. Where and before whom the Bishops Consistories are held 6. What is meant or intended by the word Consistory 7. The great Antiquity of the Bishops Consistories 8. That Antiquity further confirmed and proved 9. The difference between Consistorium and Tribunal 10. Incidents to the Chancellors Office as he is Oculus Episcopi 11. A short digression touching Administrators 12. The Laws and Canons touching Summoners 13. The Constitutions Provincial what provision there touching this Office of Summoners 14. A Judgment at Common Law in Action on the Case against an Apparitor or Summoner for Citing a man wrongfully into the Ecclesiastical Court 15. What a Commissary is how to be qualified with the Precincts of his Jurisdiction 16. Whether a Commissary may Cite persons of several Parishes to appear at his Visitation-Court 17. A Case at Common Law touching a Commissary made by a Dean 18. Whether a meer Lay-person may be a Commissary or Official Other points in Law touching that Office and the Grant thereof 19. Sufficiency or Insufficiency or other defects in Chancellors Commissaries c. properly cognizable not in the Temporal but Ecclesiastical Courts 20. The Office of Chancellorship as to the Right of it is held to be of Temporal but as to the Exercise thereof of Ecclesiastical cognizance 21. Whether the Offices of Chancellor Register c. in Ecclesiastical Courts be within the Statute of 5 Ed. 6. 1. THe Chancellor of a Diocess is a Church-Lawyer or the Bishops-Lawyer or that person who is Commissionated to be aiding and assisting to the Bishop in his Jurisdiction not confined to any one place of the Diocess nor limited as the Bishops Commissaries are only to some certain causes of the Jurisdiction but every where throughout the whole Diocess supplying the Bishops absence in all matters and causes Ecclesiastical within his Diocess By the Statute of 37 H. 8. c. 17. a Doctor of the Civil Law lawfully deputed may exercise all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and the Censures thereof By this Chancellor the Bishop within his Diocess keeps his Court according to the Ecclesiastical Laws in all matters pertaining to his Jurisdiction or otherwise relating more immediately to the Church or Government of the Clergy As Bishops in their Episcopal audience have had in all Ages the cognizance of all matters Ecclesiastical as well Civil as Criminal within the Jurisdiction of their Diocess so they have ever had to that end their Chancellors whom the Law calls Ecclesiecdici or Episcoporum Ecdici persons experienced in the Civil and Canon Laws to assist them in matters of Judgment and those whom we now call the Bishops Chancellours are the very self same persons in Office that anciently did exercise Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction under Bishops and were called Ecclesiecdici Papias per Gothofred in L. omnem C. de Episc Cler. in § praeterea ibid. Dr. Ridl View par 2. cap. 2. sect 3. Who forasmuch as they have with them the Bishops Authority every where within the Diocess for matters of Jurisdiction and in that the Bishops and They make but one Consistory are called the Bishop's Vicars General both in respect of their Authority which extendeth throughout the whole Diocess as also to distinguish them from the Commissaries of Bishops whose Authority as it is restrained only to some certain place of the Diocess so also to 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 Dr. Ridl ibid. 2. Dr. Ridley in his View of the Civil and Ecclesiastical Law says that Chancellors of Diocesses are nigh of as great Antiquity as Bishops themselves and are such necessary Officers to Bishops that every Bishop must of necessity have a Chancellor and that if any Bishop should seem to be so compleat within himself as not to need a Chancellor yet the Archbishop of the Province in case of refusal may put a Chancellor on him in that the Law presumes the Government of a whole Diocess a matter of more weight than can be well sustained by one person alone and that although the Nomination of the Chancellour is in the Bishop yet his Authority is derived from the Law Hostiens Sum. de Offic. Vicar nu 2. For which reason the Law understands him as an Ordinary as well as the Bishop Hostiens ibid. It is most probable that the multiplicity and variety of Ecclesiastical Causes introduced the use and Office of Chancellors originally for after that Princes had granted to Ecclesiastical persons their Causes and their Consistories and Circumstances varying these Causes into a more numerous multiplication than were capable of being defined by like former Presidents necessity call'd for new Decisions and they for such Judges as were experienced in such Laws as were adapted to matters of an Ecclesiastical Cognizance which would have been too prejudicial an Avocation of Bishops from the exercise of their more Divine Function had not the office of the Chancellor in determining such matters been an expedient to prevent the said prejudice or inconvenience 3. By the Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical it is Ordered That upon the days of the Visitation every Chancellor Archdeacon Commissary and Official as also at the ordinary time when Church-wardens are Sworn shall deliver them such Books of Articles as whereon to ground their Presentments Also that they shall not suffer any to be cited into Ecclesiastical Courts by any General process of Quorum Nomina nor the same person to be cited into several Ecclesiastical Courts for one and the same Crime for which end the Chancellour and Archdeacon are within one month next after the
the Bishop of London Willielmus Dei gratia Rex Anglorum R. Bainardo S. de magna Villa P. de Vabines caeterisque meis Fidelibus de Essex de Hertfordshire de Middlesex Salutem Sciatis vos omnes c. In which Charter the Tenor of the foresaid Charter is recited word by word in English The like Charter he also there says is in the Book of Charters of the Archbishop of Canterbury Whereby it is most evident that the Bishops Consistories are of great Antiquity and that they were erected when Causes Ecclesiastical were removed from the Tourne which is a Court of Record holden before the Sheriff to the Consistory So that this Law made by the Conqueror seems as Mr. Blount in his Nomo-Lexiâ—on on this word well observes to give the Original of the Bishops Consistory as it now sits with us distinct and divided from the Hundred or County-Court wherewith it seems probable in the time of the Saxons to have been joyn'd 9. Lindwood in the Provincial Constitutions upon this word Consistorium quoad Episcopos puts this difference between Consistorium and Tribunal Tribunal says he est Locus in quo sedet Ordinarius inferior but Consistorium est Locus in quo sedet princeps ad Judicandum Lindw de foro Competent c. excussis in ver Consistoria Albeit according to the vulgar acceptation of these words we refer Tribunal to any place of Judicature but Consistorium to that only which is of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction 10. This Chancellor of a Diocess as he is Oculus Episcopi ought to have an eye into all parts of the Diocess and hath immediately under the Ordinary Jurisdiction of all matters Ecclesiastical within the same not only for reformation of Manners and punishment of Enormities of a Spiritual nature by Ecclesiastical Censures but also in Causes Matrimonial and Testamentary as to the Probat of Wills and granting Letters of Administration of the Goods of a person dying Intestate where there are not Bona Notabilia In which case the Will shall be proved or Administration granted by the Prerogative of the Archbishop And wherever there is an Administration duly granted there the Administrator doth almost in all points represent the person of the Intestate as legally as any Executor can the person of his Testator Testamentarily For this Administrator in construction of the Common Law is that person to whose trust care conduct and management the Goods and Chattels Real and Personal of the Intestate are committed by the Ordinary or such other as under him is duly Authorized to grant the same But under this Notion or Appellation of Administrator neither the Civil nor the Canon Law knows any such Officer only they take notice of Administrators as Governours of Persons Places or Things Decret Can. 23. q. 5. cap. 26. Extra Com. cap. 11. And it is most probable that the Common Law might as some conceive take its light as to this Officer under this notion as now practicable with us from the Constitution of the Emperour Leo. I. 28. nulli licere C. de Episc Cler. whereby it is Ordained That the Bishop shall take care to see such Legacies duly performed as are bequeathed for the Redemption of Captives in case the Testator appoint not one to execute his Will in that particular This power given to the Ordinary of making Administrators in case of Intestation and of Authorizing them to act as Executors is very ancient by the Statute-Law And if any Ordinary Chancellor c. having power by the Act of 21 H. 8. to grant the Administration of the goods of him that dieth Intestate to the Widow or next of Kin shall take any Reward for the preferring any person before another to the Administration it is Bribery 11. A lawful Administrator may render his own Goods liable to the Intestates Debts either by a Devastavit or by a False Plea Judicially and his Executor or Administrator shall not succeed him in the Administration to his Intestate unless qualified to require Administration of both Intestates but the Administration of the first Intestates goods is de novo to be committed to his next of Kin as de bonis non Adm. And if a Stranger by any Act make himself Executor de son tort the Creditors and Legataries may not sue him as Administrator albeit it be an Administration in Fact but must sue him as Executor in his own wrong who notwithstanding is not any further liable than to the value of the Deceased's Goods as Assets in his hands But in case the Ordinary shall without granting any Letters of Administration make his Letters Ad Colligendum in that case he makes himself liable to Actions pro tanto as if himself were actually possessed of the Goods of the deceased And here Note That Funeral expences according to the degree and quality of the Deceased are to be allowed of his Goods before any debt or duty whatsoever for that is Opus pium or Charitativum 12. And as in these Consistories there is a great variety of Ecclesiastical Causes heard and determined so also the Officers belonging thereto are many and of various qualities and degrees whereof some seem to be magis principales others minus principales but others in the popular account as meer Animalia tantum Rationalia by whom they understand Apparitors who in truth are Summoners and whose Character in Law is this viz. He is that person whose employment is to serve such Processes as issue out of the Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Courts and as a Messenger to Cite Offenders and others to make their appearance therein as occasion shall require By the Statute of 21 H. 8. c. 5. as also by the 138th Canon of the Ecclesiastical Constitutions Apparitors are called Summoners or Sumners by which Canon the Abuses aud Grievances pretended to be practiced by such Summoners or Apparitors are sufficiently redressed For as the multitude of them is thereby abridged and restrained by Decreeing and Ordaining That no Bishop or Archdeacon or their Vicars or Officials or other inferiour Ordinaries shall depute or have more Apparitors to serve their Jurisdictions respectively than either they or their Predecessors were accustomed to have Thirty years before the publishing the said Ecclesiastical Constitutions So it is likewise provided by the said Canon That the said Apparitors shall by themselves faithfully execute their Offices and not by any colour or pretence whatsoever cause or suffer their Mandats to be executed by any Messengers or Substitutes unless upon some good cause to be first allowed and approved by the Ordinary of the place It is also further Provided by the said Canon That they shall not take upon them the Office of Promoters or Informers for the Court nor shall exact more or greater Fees than are prescribed by the 135th Canon of the said Ecclesiastical Constitutions And in case either the number of Apparitors deputed shall exceed the aforesaid Limitation or any of
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
exempted out of the Bishop of London's Jurisdiction The Judge of this Court of Arches is styled the Dean of the Arches or the Official of the Arches-Court unto whose Deanary or Officialty to the Archbishop of Canterbury in all matters and causes Spiritual is annexed the Peculiar Jurisdiction of the thirteen Parishes as aforesaid Having also all Ordinary Jurisdiction in Spiritual causes of the first Instance with power of Appeal as the superiour Ecclesiastical Consistory through the whole Province of Canterbury yet the Lord Coke says his power to call any person for any Cause out of any part of his Province within the Diocess of any other Bishop except it be upon Appeal is restrained by the Stat. of 23 H. 8. c. 9. Yet his Jurisdiction is Ordinary and extends it self through the whole Province of Canterbury insomuch that upon any Appeal made to him from any Diocess within the said Province he may forthwith without further examination at that time of the Cause issue forth his Citation to be served on the Appealee with his Inhibition to the Judge à quo In Mich. 6 Jac. C. B. there was a Case between Porter and Rochester The Case was this Lewis and Rochester who dwelt in Essex in the Diocess of London were sued for subtraction of Tithes growing in B. in the said County of Essex by Porter in the Court of Arches of the Archbishop of Canterbury in London where the Archbishop hath a peculiar Jurisdiction of thirteen Parishes called a Deanary exempt from the Authority of the Bishop of London whereof the Parish of S. Mary de Arcubus is the chief And a great Question was moved Whether in the said Court of Arches holden in London he might cite any dwelling in Essex for subtraction of Tithes growing in Essex or whether he be prohibited by the Statute of 23 H 8. c. 9 Which after debate at Bar by Council and also by Dr. Ferrard Dr. James and others in open Court and lastly by all the Justices of the Common Pleas A Prohibition was granted to the high Court of Arches And in this case divers points were resolved by the Court 1 That all Acts of Parliament are parcel of the Laws of England and therefore shall be expounded by the Judges of the Laws of England and not by the Civilians and Canonists although the Acts concern Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction 2 Resolved by Coke Chief Justice Warburton Daniel and Foster Justices That the Archbishop of Canterbury is restrained by the 23 H. 8. cap. 9. to cite any one out of his own Diocess For Diaecesis dicitur distinctio c. quae divisa vel diversa est ab Ecclesia alterius Episcopatus Commissa gubernatio unius c. And is derived a Di Duo Electio quia separat duas Jurisdictiones And because the Archbishop of Canterbury hath a peculiar Jurisdiction in London for this cause it is fitly said in the Title Preamble and body of the Act that when the Archbishop sitting in his Exempt peculiar in London cites one dwelling in Essex he cites him out of the Bishop of London's Diocess Therefore out of the Diocess And in the clause of the penalty of 10 l. it is said Out of the Diocess c. where the party dwelleth which agrees with the signification of Diocess before 2. The body of the Act is No person shall be henceforth cited before any Ordinary c. out of the Diocess or peculiar Jurisdiction where the person shall be dwelling and if so then à Fortiori the Court of Arches which sits in a Peculiar may not cite others out of another Diocess And the words out of the Diocess are meant of the Diocess or Jurisdiction of the Ordinary where he dwelleth And from the Preamble of the Act the Lord Coke observes and inferrs That the intention of the Act was to reduce the Archbishop to his proper Diocess unless in these five Cases viz. 1 For any Spiritual offence or cause committed or omitted contrary to Right and Duty by the Bishop c. which word omitted proves there ought to be a default in the Ordinary 2 Except it be in Case of Appeal and other lawful cause where the party shall find himself grieved by the Ordinary after the matter there first begun Therefore it ought to be first begun before the Ordinary 3 In case the Bishop or Ordinary c. dare not or will not Convent the party to be sued before him 4 In case the Bishop or Judge of the place within whose Jurisdiction or before whom the Suit by this Act should be begun and prosecuted be party directly or indirectly to the matter or cause of the same Suit 5 In case any Bishop or other inferiour Judge under him c. make Request to the Archbishop Bishop or other inferiour Ordinary or Judge and that to be done in Cases only where the Law Civil or Common doth affirm c. The Lord Coke takes notice also of Two Provisoes in that Act which do likewise explain it viz. That it shall be lawful for every Archbishop to cite any person inhabiting in any Bishops Diocess in his Province for matter of Heresie By which says he it appears That for all causes not excepted he is prohibited by the Act. 2 There is a Saving for the Archbishop calling any person out of the Diocess where he shall be dwelling to the probat of any Testament Which Proviso should be vain if notwithstanding that Act he should have concurrent Jurisdiction with every Ordinary throughout his whole Province Wherefore it was concluded That the Archbishop out of his Diocess unless in the Cases excepted is prohibited by the 23 H. 8. c 9. to cite any man out of any other Diocess which Act is but a Law declaratory of the Ancient Canons and a true Exposition thereof as appears by the Canon Cap. Romana in Sext. de Appellat c. de Competenti in Sext. And as the Lord Coke observes the Act is so expounded by all the Clergy of England at a Convocation at London An. 1 Jac. 1603. Can. 94. who gives us further to understand in this Case between Porter and Rochester That the Archbishop of this Realm before that Act had power Legantine from the Pope By which they had Authority not only over all but concurrent Authority with every Ordinary c. not as Archbishop of Canterbury c. but by his Power and Authority Legantine Et tria sunt genera Legatorum 1 Quidam de Latere Dom. Papae mittuntur c. 2 Dativi qui simpliciter in Legatione mittuntur c. 3 Nati seu Nativi qui suarum Ecclesiarum praetextu Legatione funguntur sunt Quatuor viz. Archiepiscopus Cantuariensis Eboracensis Remanensis Pisanis Which Authority Legantine is now taken away and utterly abolished 4. It is supposed that the Judge of this Court was originally styled the Dean of the Arches by reason of his substitution to the Archbishop's Official when
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
Faggots be mistaken yet if it appears that he made his Suggestion according to the Copy of the Libel given him by his Proctor no Consultation shall be brought for by the Statute of 2 H. 5. he ought to have a true Copy of the Libel 30. The Case was where A. sued B. for Tithes within the Parish of C. B. said they were within the Parish of D. and the Parson of D. came pro interesse suo and they proceed there to Sentence Question if in such a Parish or such a Parish shall be tried by the Law of the Land or of the Church Wray said It was Triable by the Common Law Fenner said the Pope hath not distinguished of Parishes but Ordained that Tithes shall be paid within the Parish 31. K. â—arson of S. sued C. in the Spiritual Court for Tithes of certain Lands in the Parish of S. D. Plaintiff in the Prohibition came pro interesse suo and said there was a Custome within the Parish of S. that the Parson of H. shall have Tithes 13 Cheeses of the Lands in S. and in recompence thereof the Parson of S. had 13 Cheeses for the Tithes of H. It was said the Right of Tithes were in question and not the Bounds of the Parish and therefore no Prohibition and of that Opinion was the Court and a Consultation awarded 32. If an Administration be granted to A. where it ought not to be granted to him and after the Administration be Repealed and granted to B. for that he is the next of Kin In this case B. may sue A. in the Ecclesiastical Court to Account for the profits of the Goods and Chattels of the Deceased during his time and no Prohibition to be granted for B. cannot have an Action of Trespass against A. nor hath he any remedy for them at the Common Law 33. A Parson may sue in the Ecclesiastical Court for a Modus Decimandi and no Prohibition shall be granted for it is in the nature of Tithes But a Prescription cannot be tried in the Ecclesiastical Court for that it ought to be tried by a Jury which cannot be there Yet if a Parson Prescribe to have Tithes of things not Tithable as of Rents of Houses he may sue for that in the Ecclesiastical Court and no Prohibition lies yet no Tithes de jure ought to be paid of them So he may sue in the Ecclesiastical Court for the Tithes of great Trees which he claims by Prescription and no Prohibition lies yet de jure they are not Tithable Quaere 9 H. 6. 46. 34. If there be a Custome that after the Grass is cut and set into Grass-cocks the Tenth Cock be assigned to the Parson and that by the Custome it shall be lawful for him to make the same into Hay upon the Land and the Owner of the Land disturb him from making the same he may sue for that in the Ecclesiastical Court and no Prohibition shall be granted for that is incident to the Custome to come there to make the same into Hay Also the proper place to sue for a Legacy is the Ecclesiastical Court for that it is not any Debt but only due by the Will If A. do owe to B. five Marks and he Devise by his Will that whereas he doth owe five Marks to B. his Executor shall make it 10 l. The Suit for that 10 l. may be in the Ecclesiastical Court for that is not any Addition to the five Marks but a new Sum given in satisfaction of the five Marks and so no part of the 10 l. any Debt but only a Legacy Also if a man devise a Rent out of his Stock and House which he hath for years the Devisee may sue for that Rent in the Ecclesiastical Court for that it issues out of a Chattel and no remedy for it at the Common Law If a man possessed of a Lease for years Devise that his Executor shall out of the profits thereof pay 20 l. to each of his Daughters at their full Age the Executor may be sued in the Ecclesiastical Court to put in Sureties to pay the Legacies and no Prohibition shall be granted for that is to issue out of a Chattel 35. If there be a Question between two persons touching several Grants which of them shall be Register of the Bishop's Court that shall not be tried in the Bishop's Court but at Common Law for although the Subjectum circa quod be Spiritual yet the Office it self is Temporal Also if a man set forth his Tithes by severance of Nine parts from the Tenth and after carry away the Tenth part the Parson cannot sue for that in the Ecclesiastical Court for that by the severance of the Nine parts it did become a Chattel for which he might have his Action of Trespass 36. It is Reported That if a Suit be in the Ecclesiastical Court against a Woman for exercising the Trade of a Midwife without License of the Ordinary contrary to the Canons a Prohibition lies for that is not any Spiritual Function whereof they have cognizance And in this case Prohibition was granted to the Court of Audience 37. The Ecclesiastical Court may not try the Bounds of a Parish and therefore if Suit be there on that matter a Prohibition lies So if the Question there be whether such a Church be a Parochial Church or but a Chappel of Ease a Prohibition also lies In the Case between Elie vicar of Alderburne in the Country of Wilts and Cooke Prohibition was granted and thereupon Issue joyned whether several Parishes and tried by Verdict to be one Parish 38. Where a man sued for a Legacy in the Ecclesiastical Court against an Executor and he there pleaded that he had not Assets save only to pay the Debts and the said Court disallow'd of that plea a Prohibition was granted 39. If a man sues in the Ecclesiastical Court to have an Account for the profits of a Benefice a Prohibition lies for that it belongs to the Common Law But if the Suit be for the profits taken during the time of Sequestration no Prohibition lies 40. In Worts and Clyston's Case where the Plaintiff sued for Tithes in the Ecclesiastical Court by virtue of a Lease made by the Vicar of T. for three years The Defendant prayed to be discharged of Tithes by a former Lease The Plaintiff in the Ecclesiastical Court prayed a Prohibition to stay his own Suit there It was granted by the Court because they are not to meddle with the trial of Leases or real Contracts there although they have Jurisdiction of the Original cause viz. the Tithes 41. In Collier's Case upon the endowment of a Vicarage upon an Appropriation it was Ordained by the Bishop That the Vicar should pay yearly 20 l. to the Precentor in the Cathedral Church of S. to the use of the Vicars Chorals of the said Church It was held
and used in part by several Nations he compiled them into Volumes and called them Jus Canonicum and Ordained that they should be read and expounded in publick Schools and Universities as the Imperial Law was read and expounded and commanded that they should be observed and obeyed by all Christians on pain of Excommunication and often endeavoured to put them in execution by Coercive power and assumed to himself the power of interpreting abrogating and dispensing with those Laws in all the Realms of Christendom at his pleasure so that the Canonists ascribe to him this prerogative Papa in omnibus jure positivis in quibusdam ad jus divinum pertinentibus dispensare potest quia dicitur omnia Jura habere in Scrinio pectoris sui quantum ad interpretationem dispensationem Lib. 6. de Const cap. licet About the time of An. 25. Ed. 1. Simon a Monk of Walden began to read the Canon Law in the University of Cambridge vid. Stow and Walsingham in that year Also the Manusc libr. 6. Decretal in New-Colledge Library at Oxford hath this Inscription in the Front Anno Domini 1298. which was in the year 26 Ed. 1. 19. Novembr in Ecclesia Fratrum Praedicator Oxon. fuit facta publicatio lib. 6. Decretal whereby it appears when it was that the Canon Law was introduced into England But the Jurisdiction which the Pope by colour thereof claimed in England was a meer Usurpation to which the Kings of England from time to time made opposition even to the time of King H. 8. And therefore the Ecclesiastical Law which Ordained That when a man is created a Bishop all his Inferiour Benefices shall be void is often said in the Bishop of St. David's Case in 11 H. 4. to be the Ancient Law of England And 29 Ed. 3. 44. a. in the Case of the Prebend of Oxgate it is said That though the Constitution which ousts Pluralities began in the Court of Rome yet a Church was adjudged void in the Kings Bench for that cause or reason whereby it appears That after the said Constitution was received and allowed in England it became the Law of England Yet all the Ecclesiastical Laws of England were not derived from the Court of Rome for long before the Canon Law was authorized and published in England which was before the Norman Conquest the Ancient Kings of England viz. Edgaâ— Aethelstan Alfred Edward the Confessor and others have with the Advice of their Clergy within the Realm made divers Ordinances for the government of the Church of England and after the Conquest divers Provincial Synods have been held and many Constitutions have been made in both Realms of England and Ireland All which are part of our Ecclesiastical Laws at this day Vid. Le Charter de William le Conqueror Dat. An. Dom. 1066. irrot 2 R. 2. among the Charters in Archiv Turris Lond. pro Decano Capitulo Lincoln Willielmus Dei gratia Rex Anglorum c. Sciatis c. Quod Episcopales Leges quae non bene nec secundum Sanctorum Canonum praecepta usque ad mea tempora in Regno Angliae fuerunt Communi Concilio Episcoporum meorum caeterorum Episcoporum omnium Principum Regni mei emendandas judicavi c. See also Girald Cambrens lib. 2. cap. 34. in the time of King H. 2. a Synod of the Clergy of Ireland was held at the Castle wherein it was Ordained Quod omnia divina juxta quod Anglicana observat Ecclesia in omnibus partibus Hyberniae amodo tractentur Dignum enim justissimum est ut sicut Dominum Regem ex Anglia divinitus sortita est Hybernia sic etiam exinde vivendi formam accipiant meliorem But the distinction of Ecclesiastical or Spiritual Causes from Civil and Temporal Causes in point of Jurisdiction was not known or heard of in the Christian World for the space of 300 years after Christ For the causes of Testaments of Matrimony of Bastardy and Adultery and the rest which are called Ecclesiastical or Spiritual Causes were meerly Civil and determined by the Rules of the Civil Law and subject only to the Jurisdiction of the Civil Magistrate But after the Emperours had received the Christian Faith out of a zeal they had to honour the learned and godly Bishops of that time they singled out certain special Causes wherein they granted Jurisdiction unto the Bishops viz. in Causes of Tithes because they were paid to men of the Church in Causes of Matrimony because Marriages were for the most part solemnized in the Church in Causes Testamentary because Testaments were many times made in extremis when Church-men were present giving Spiritual comfort to the Testator and therefore were thought the fittest persons to take the Probats of such Testaments Howbeit these Bishops did not then proceed in these Causes according to the Canons and Decrees of the Church for the Canon Law was not then known but according to the Rules of the Imperial Law as the Civil Magistrate did proceed in other Causes so that the Primitive Jurisdiction in all these Causes was in the Supream Civil Magistate and though it be now derived from him yet it still remaineth in him as in the Fountain CHAP. XII Of Churches Chappels and Church-yards 1. Ecclesia what that word imports the several kinds thereof 2. Possessions of the Church protected by the Statute-Laws from Alienation the care of the Emperour Justinian in that point 3. To whom the Soyl and Freehold of the Church and Church-yard belong to whom the use of the Body of the Church to whom the disposal of the Pewes or Seats and charges of Repairs 4. The Common Law touching the Reparation of Churches and the disposal of the Seats therein 5. The same Law touching Isles Pictures Coats of Arms and Burials in Churches also of Assaults in Churches and Church-yard 6. The penalty of quarreling chiding brawling striking or drawing a Weapon in the Church or Church-yard 7. Where Prescription to a Seat in a Church is alledged the Common Law claims the cognizance thereof 8. The Immunities anciently of Church-Sanctuary as also of Abjuration now abrogated and taken away by Statute 9. The defacing of Tombs Sepulchres or Monuments in Churches punishable at the Common Law also of Right to Pewes and Seats in the Church 10. The Cognizance of Church-Reparations belongs to the Ecclesiastical Court 11. A Prohibition upon a surmize of a custome or usage for Contribution to repair a Church 12. Church-wardens are a Corporation for the Benefit not for the Prejudice of the Church 13. Inheritance cannot be charged with a Tax for Repairs of the Church nor may a perpetual charge be imposed upon Land for the same 14. When the use of Church-Books for Christnings first began 15. Chappel the several kinds thereof The Canonists Conceits touching the derivation of that word 16. Where two Parochial Churches are united the charge of Reparations shall be several as before 17. The Emperour Justinian's
Otho's Constitutions and whatever other causes of Consolidation are asserted by the DD. may be all referr'd to one or other of the foresaid Reasons Likewise there are certain Solemnities required by the Canon Law to be used and observed in the consolidation and union of Churches and Ecclesiastical Benefices the impracticability whereof in this Realm having otherwise provided in such cases can have no such malign influence in Law as to invalidate the thing for want of some Circumstantials so long as there is a retention of the Essentials according to the Laws and Constitutions of this Kingdom Vnio facta ab Episcopo debet intervenire Consensus Capituli sui Clem. si Vna de reb Eccl. non aliend Item requiritur Consensus Patroni Clem. in agro § ad haec de Stat. Mona Item Nullum habet effectum vivente Beneficiato Card. Zab. in dict Clem. Si una c. Item Verus valor Beneficiorum Exprimi debet c. 4. In all Consolidations regularly there ought to be Causa Necessitatis vel Vtilitatis Also the just and true value of the Benefices ought to be known as well of that which is to be united as of that to which the other is unitable in order whereunto there ought to issue a Commission of Enquiry touching the said cause and value at which all persons pretending Interest are to be or may be present upon Summons or Notice thereof timely given them to that end for no Consolidation or Union of that kind ought to be made non vocatis vocandis Rebuff Resp 195. 5. This Form touching Consolidations and union of Churches and Ecclesiastical Benefices is practiced in France which though there appears nothing therein but what seems consonant to Reason yet the Statute-Laws of this Realm have herein made other provision in this matter And that which we now commonly call Consolidation the Canon Law which is best and most properly acquainted with this matter calls Vnion Touching which there are in use and practice many things in divers Nations and Countries which were Incognita to the Interpreters of that Law and not in all things consonant to each other thereby rendring this Subject the more perplexed by reason of the several modes of practice diversified according to the various Constitutions of several Nations respectively for which reason the Interpreters of the Canon Law are the less positive in reducing the state of this matter to such a point of certainty as may be said Infallible in Law only they all agree in some certain Essentials to an Union as also for the most part in this Definition thereof viz. That Vnio est Beneficiorum seu Ecclesiarum ab Episcopo vel ab alio Superiore facta annexio To which this also may be added by way of description though not by way of definition That quando fit unio Ecclesia in proprietatem concedi solet Cap. in cura de jur Patronat and it must be Vnio Beneficiorum for there cannot be an Union unless there be plura Beneficia in the case L. 1. per totum ff de Optio Legat. Also it is Beneficiorum seu Ecclesiarum because the word Benefice is in it self a general term comprehending all Benefices great and small Regular and Secular Dignities and Offices C. 1. de reg jur in 6. c. extirpandae § qui vero de Praebend So that Bishopricks as well as other Benefices may be united and annexed But a Bishoprick which the Law calls culmen Dignitatis doth not regularly fall under the name or notion of Benefice c. pen. de Praebend and yet two Bishopricks may be united c. Decimas seq 16. q. 1. Rebuff de Vnion Benefic nu 4 5. 6. This Consolidation or Union at the Canon Law is either Perpetual or Temporal if Perpetual then it must be so expressed in the Union that in perpetuum univimus c. exposuisti de Praeb if Temporal then it is only for his life in whose favour the Vnion is made c. 1. ne Sede vacante and at his death it expires c. quoniam Abbas de Offic. Delegat But the Practice with us knows nothing of the Temporal Member of this distinction nor is the practice thereof at this day received in France Rebuff ubi supr nu 9. such Temporal Unions being only in contemplatione personae non Ecclesiae whereas the Law is Ecclesiae magis favendum est quam personae Dic. c. 1. c. requisisti de Testa Oldr. Consil 257. And where two Parochial Churches are consolidated or united that Church to which the other is united shall be the Superiour and principal the other which is united is the Inferiour and Accessory yet shall enjoy the Priviledges of that Church to which she is united c. recolentes in fin de stat Monach. Lastly The more worthy Benefice is never united to the minus digno and therefore a Parochial Church may not be united to a Chappel sed è contra Sic c. exposuisti de Praebend CHAP. XV. Of Dilapidations 1. What Dilapidation signifies how many waies it may happen the Remedies in Law in case thereof and to what Court the cognizance thereof properly belongs 2. Provision made by the Canon for prevention of Dilapidations 3. Dilapidation twofold in construction of Law An Exposition of the said Canon the Bishops power of Sequestration in case of Dilapidation 4. By whom the Body of the Church and by whom the Chancel shall be kept in repair How the charge of Repair in the case of Dilapidations shall be apportioned and what the Law in such cases where one Parish is divided into Two 5. Dilapidation of Ecclesiastical Edifices a good cause in Law of Deprivation 6. The Injunction of King Ed. 6. for prevention of Dilapidations 7. Leases made by a Parson void by Statute for Non-residence to prevent Dilapidations 8. The wasting the Woods of a Bishoprick a Dilapidation in Law such Woods being the Dower of the Church 9. A Vicar felling down Timber Trees and Wood in the Church-yard is a Dilapidation and good cause of Deprivation 1. DIlapidation is the Incumbents suffering the Chancel or other the Edifices of his Ecclesiastical Living to go to ruine or decay neglecting to repair the same It extends also to his committing or suffering to be committed any wilful Waste in or upon the Glebe-woods or other Inheritance of his Church Against which provision is made by the Provincial Constitutions whereof Sir Simon Degge takes notice in his Parsons Counsellor though in truth the Canon there provides rather as to satisfaction for than prevention of such Dilapidations Lindw c. si Rector alicujus Ecclesiae Gloss ibid. But the Canon Law is express and full in all respects relating to this implicit Sacriledge nor doth the Custome of England or the Common Law leave the Church without sufficient Remedy in this case albeit it postpones the satisfaction of dammages for Dilapidations to the payment of Debts as the Canon Law prefers it before the payment of Legacies
Sir Simon Degge in the forementioned place makes mention of the Inhibition out of Chancery to the Bishop of Durham by order of Parliament in Edward the First 's time for wasting the Woods belonging to that Bishoprick Also of the Archbishop of Dublin's being Fined three hundred Marks for disforresting a Forrest belonging to his Archbishoprick Likewise that by several Books of the Common Law a Bishop c. wasting the Lands Woods or Houses of his Church may be deposed or deprived by his Superiour And in case any Parson Vicar c. shall make any Conveyance of his Goods to defraud his Successor of his Remedy in case of Dilapidations in that case it is provided by the Stat. of 13 Eliz c. 2. that the Spiritual Court may in like manner proceed against the Grantee as otherwise it might have done against the deceased Parson's Executors or Administrators and all such Grants to defraud any person of their just actions were made void by a later Statute It is agreed That the cognizance of Dilapidations properly and naturally belongs to the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and no Prohibition to lie in the case or if such happen to be granted then the same to be superseded by a Consultation yet it seems Actions upon the Case grounded upon the custome of England have been brought in this case at Common Law and Dammages recovered It is also enacted by the Statute of 14 Eliz. That that Moneys recovered upon dammages for Dilapidations shall be expended in and upon the Houses c. dilapidated 2. Cardinal Othobon in his Canon De Domibus Ecclesiarum resiciendis hath constituted and ordained That all such Ecclesiastical persons as are Beneficed take special care that from time to time they sufficiently repair the Dwelling-houses and other Edifices belonging to their Benefices as oft as need shall so require unto which duty they are earnestly and frequently to be exhorted and admonish'd as well by their Diocesans as by the Archdeacons And if they shall for the space of two months next after such Monition neglect the same the Bishop of the Diocess may from thenceforth cause it to be effectually done at the Parson's charge out of the profits and fruits of his Church and Benefice taking only so much and no more as may suffice for such Repairs And the Chancels of Churches to be in like manner repair'd by those who are obliged thereto And as to Archbishops Bishops and other inferiour Prelates they are by the said Canon enjoyn'd to keep their Houses and Edifices in good and sufficient Repair sub divini Judicii attestatione Constit Othobon de dom Eccl. reâ—iâ— Sub divini Judicii attestatione h. e. damnationis aeternae in extremo Calâ—ulo glo in ver Sub divini Const Othobon de resident Archiepisc 3. By the Gloss on that Canon it is inferr'd That a Parson may be guilty of Dilapidations or of a Neglect in that kind two waies viz. either by not keeping the Edifices in good repair or by not repairing them being gone to decay That Canon chiefly refers to the Mansion-houses of all Benefices Ecclesiastical and that not only of all Parsonages and Rectories but also of all Bishopricks and of all Curates and Prebends and of all others having Ecclesiastical Livings but not specially by the words of this Canon unto their Farm-houses though they also are by the Canon Law provided for in case of Dilapidations And such as neglect the Reparations aforesaid may be accused and convicted thereof before the Diocesan who hath power to sequester the Fruits of such Benefice for the Reparations aforesaid Gloss in ver cessaverit in dict Can. such Fruits thereof being in construction of Law as it were tacitly hypothecated by a certain kind of Priviledge for such Indemnity and for that reason the Bishop in some cases may for that end sequester the same 4. And whereas in the abovesaid Canon it is said That Chancels shall be kept in repair by such as are thereunto obliged it is to be understood that that is spoken by way of allusion to the common Custome in England whereby the Body of the Church is usually repaired by the Parishioners and Chancels by the Rectors who notwithstanding ought to be at the care though not at the costs of the other also he being annually accountable to the Bishop for the same if the Bishop so please for which reason the Rector hath power to audit the Accounts of the costs and charges about the same as also what shall be given or bequeathed by way of Legacy for that end and purpose And where this custome prevails That the Parishioners shall repair the Body of the Church it is not to be understood that this is incumbent on them as a Real but as a Personal duty or burden yet every Parishioner proportionably to that quantity of Land which he holds within the Parish and number of Cattel he feeds on the same Gloss ibid. in ver ad hoc tenentur And in case one Parish be by legal Authority divided into Two in that case if such division were made by and with the consent of these Four viz. the Bishop the Patron the Parson and the Parishioners then the more Ancient Church shall not contribute to the Reparations of the New for that now they are two dictinct Parishes Gloss ibid. 5. Sir Ed. Coke in the third part of his Institutes having spoken of erecting of Houses and Building c. tells us what he finds in the Books of the Common Law and Records touching Dilapidations and decay of Buildings and having Margined as here in this Margent says That Dilapidation of Ecclesiastical Palaces Houses and Buildings is a good cause of Deprivation 6. By the Injunctions of King Ed. 6. An. 1547. to all his Clergy it is required That the Proprietors Parsons Vicars and Clarks having Churches Chappels or Mansions shall yearly bestow upon the same Mansions or Chancels of their Churches being in decay the fifth part of their Benefices till they be fully repaired and the same so repaired shall alwaies keep and maintain in good estate Consonant to which is the Thirteenth Article of Queen Elizabeths Injunctions given to all the Clergy An. 1559. 7. The Case was where the Parson made a Lease to the Plaintiff for 21 years after the Statute of 13 Eliz. of Lands usually Lett rendring the ancient Rent the Patron and Ordinary confirmed it the Lessee lett part of the term to the Defendant the Parson died the Successor entered and leased to the Defendant against whom the Lessee brought Debt upon the former Lease who pleaded the Statute of 13 Eliz. which made all Leases void where the Parson is not resident or absent for 80 daies It was Adjudged That the Lease was void by the death of the Incumbent for the Justices said The Statute doth provide against Dilapidations and for maintenance of Hospitality and therefore provided the Leases shall be void not only for Non-residence
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
Customs of the place where they are committed Grotius out of Lessius affirms that the Adulterer and Adulteress are not only obliged to indemnifie the innocent party as to all charges of Alimentation of the unlawfully begotten but also to make good what dammage the Legitimate Children may thereby suffer in their Inheritance and whoever doth lessen the Reputation of a Virgin either by force or insinuations shall refund to her as much as she is thereby fallen in value upon the hopes or expectation of her Preferment in Marriage But if by his Sollicitations he hath obtained the use of her body under a promise of Marriage he is obliged to marry her accordingly Grot. de jur bel lib. 2. cap. 17. § 5. Less lib. 11. cap. 10. Dub. 6. 10. Although this Sin of Adultery is properly and of right belonging to the Cognizance of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction yet it will not be denied but that as it is an offence against the peace of the Realm for which reason some are of opinion that Avoutry or Bandry is an offence Temporal as well as Spiritual the Justices of the Peace may out of their Sessions require Surety for the good Behaviour of such as offend therein as also of such as by Common Fame are reputed Resorters to houses suspected of maintaining Adultery or Incontinency of such as keep such houses of lewd Women found in such houses of common Whoremongers and common Whores And upon Information given to a Constable that a Man and a Woman be in Adultery or Fornication together or that a Man and woman of evil Fame or Report are gone to a suspected house in the night the Officer may take company with him and if he find them so he may carry them to Prison or before a Justice of Peace to find Sureties for the good Behaviour 11. The Punishment of Adultery is diversified according to the Laws and Customs of several Nations respectively as forementioned and the Penalty thereof with the Saxons of old in this Kingdom was called Lairwite or Lecherwite and Legergeldum from two Saxon words signifying it seems concumbere and mulcta a Fine or Custom of punishing offenders of that kind which Priviledg is said to have belonged anciently to the Lords of some Mannors in reference to their Villains and Tenants And by Statute Law as also by the law of the Land a Wife that clopes and departs from her Husband with an Adulterer and refuses to be reconciled to him loseth or forfeits her Dower or Jointure yea though she departed from him with his own consent to which purpose remarkable is that Case of Sr. John de Camois Son of the Lord Ralph Camois in the time of Ed. the first who of his own voluntary Will gave and demised his own Wife Margaret a Daughter and Heir of John de Gaidesden unto Sr. William Pannell Kt. and together with her gave granted released and Quit-claimed all her Goods and Chattels c. so that neither himself nor any other in his name should ever after make any claim or challenge any interest in the said Margaret or to or in her Goods or Chattels c. Whereupon she demanding her Dower in part of the Lands of Sr. John Camois there happened a Suit at Law wherein she was overthrown by Judgment given That she ought to have no Dower out of his Estate upon the Stat. of Westm 2. Quia recessit à Marito suo in vita sua vixit ut Adultera cum praedicto Gulielmo c. 12. There are of the Church of Rome who hold that Adultery in conjugato cum soluta is minus peccatum quam in conjugata cum soluto the reason they give for it is for that it is far more repugnant to the Law of Nature that one Woman should be joyned to two Men than e contra and suppose that Bigamy in the Patriarchs of old is an impregnable Fortification of that Reason the Feminine Sex will give them but little thanks for this Opinion But leaving them to enjoy the one and the other we hold that This as to the Inquiry and Punishment thereof is properly within the Ecclesiastical Cognizance it being most consonant to Reason that in what Jurisdiction Matrimonial Causes are controvertible in the same should the Violation of Conjugal Rights be discussed to which end as well the Civil as Canon Law though that especially are furnish'd with great variety of Constitutions to obviate all manner of circumstances relating to this Subject Pasch 8. car B. R. Case Matingly vers Martyn It was resolved that the cognizance of all Fornications Adulteries and of persons suspected to live in Adultery doth belong to the Ecclesiastical Court Jones Rep. So then Adulterium being quasi Accessio ad alterius thorum is the violation of anothers Bed whence it is required that either both or one of the Parties be under the Matrimonial Vow for that conjugal circumstance either in the Male or Female is as the causa sine qua non that the luxurious Act falls under the notion of Adultery in distinction from acts of the same kind under other circumstances For the Law holds that it may be committed in a threefold manner either ex parte viri vel feminae vel utriusque alway supposing that one or both are Matrimonializ'd and both living The Penalty of Adultery hath varied according to the Laws and Customs of several Nations and of several Ages in the same Nation as appears by what hath been said on this Subject The punishment of this epidemical evil the very Brutes and meer Animals have given us a president of if credit may be given to such as have made report of the Stork of which Lessius writes out of another Author as being a Creature of strange abhorrency and revenge of Adultery that by the very instinct of Nature the jealous Animal impatient of vindicating his defiled Nest summon'd others of the same Feather to advise in the Case Testifying that in his own time a certain Stork being as it were convicted of Adultery per olfactum masculi sui or the smelling of her Male he conven'd a Flock of other Storks before whom he so prosecuted Nescio qualiter sayes the Author the Indictment against the Female Stork that she was first deplum'd then torn in pieces by the rude Multude of the other Storks as if in a solemn Council they had all unanimosly sentenc'd her to death as an Adulteress If the report seems improbable yet the Moral is very applicable CHAP. XXXV Of Bastards and Bastardy 1. What Bastard signifies the derivation of that word 2. The difference between Bastard and Mulier what Mulier signifies and why so called 3. Bastardy distinguish'd at the Common Law into Special and General Bastardy 4. The Presumptions of Law touching Bastardy in case of the Husbands obsence from his Wife 5. Five Appellations of Bastards for distinctions sake at the Civil Law with respect to the several
Diocess to which the Court viz. Jones and Whitlock answered That at the Common Law a Bishop cannot Cite a man out of his Diocess And that the Statute of 23 H. 8. inflicts a punishment c. and Whitlock said That a Bishop hath not power of Jurisdiction out of his Diocess but to Absolve him being Excommunicate 2 Upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. cap. 23. because the Case of Defamation is not within the Statute and then the Statute Enacts That it shall be void To which the Court answered That he ought to averr that by way of Plea and so also said the Clerks of the Court That he ought to have Sued a Habeas Corpus and upon Return thereof to Plead But the Plea was admitted de bene esse and the party bailed 16. No Letters of Excommunication are to be received in stay of Actions if they are not under the Seal of the Ordinary for an Excommunication under the Seal of the Commissary is not to be allowed in such case If the principal cause of the Action for which the Excommunication was be not comprized within the Letter of the Certificate it is not to be allowed that so it may appear to the Court that the Ecclesiastical Court had Jurisdiction of the Cause for which he was Excommunicated The Certificate ought to be Vniversis Ecclesiae Filiis or to the Justices of the Court where the Suit is to be stayed Also the Excommunication certified ought to be duly dated that is the Certificate ought to contain the day of the Excommunication A Certificate by the Archdeacon is sufficient by the Custome And upon an Excommunicato Capiendo if it appears that the Excommunication was by an Archdeacon of some certain place it ought also to appear either expresly or by implication in the Certificate that the matter for which the Excommunication was was within his Jurisdiction otherwise it is not good 17. F. being apprehended upon an Excommunicato Capiendo and the Significavit being That he was Excommunicated for not answering Articles and not shewing what they were his discharge was prayed for the Incertainty thereof and per Curiam it is not good and therefore was Bailed Coke 22 E. 4. is That a man was Excommunicated for certain Causes not good and so Co. 5. Arscots Case Schismaticus inveteratus is not good Excommunication nor shall be allowed in the cause of him who Excommunicates him 5 E. 3. quod fuit concessum per Doderidge 18. In Trollops Case it was Resolved That the Official cannot certifie Excommunication for none shall do that but he to whom the Court may write to assoil the party as the Bishop and Chancellor of C. or O. and for that if a Bishop certifie and die before the Return of the Writ it shall not be received but the Successor shall do it and one Bishop shall not certifie an Excommunication made by a Bishop in another Court but a Bishop after Election before Consecration may and so may the Vicar-General if it appears that the Bishop is in Remotis agendis also that the Suit and the Cause are to be expressed in the Certificate that the Temporal Court may judge of the sufficiency and if it be insufficient as if a Bishop certifie an Excommunication made by himself in his own Cause the Court may write to absolve him 19. H. was condemned in the Chancellors Court of Oxford in Costs and had not paid an Excommunicato Capiendo being awarded upon a Significavit returned and delivered here in Court according to the Statute of 5 Eliz. cap. 23. He was Arrested thereupon Resolved The Excommunication was good though the Significavit doth not mention any of these Causes in the Statute but it is for other Causes but if any Capias with Proclamations and Penalties be therein awarded the Penalties be void unâ—ess the Significavit express it to be for one of the Causes mentioned â—n the Statute 20. In another Case where a man was Excommunicated upon a Sentence in the Delegates for Costs in Castigatione Morum 21 Jac. a Capias with Proclamations issued and he being taken Quoad the Excommunicato Capiendo pleads That the Offence and Contempt was pardoned by the General Pardon of 21 Jac. It was Agreed That the Pardon did not discharge the Costs of the party which were taxed before the Pardon It was moved there That as the Costs were not taken away so no more was the Excommunication which is the means to enforce them to be paid But Resolved That this Excommunication before the Pardon is but for a Contempt to the Court and all Contempts in all Courts are discharged by the Pardon wherefore the same was discharged and for the payment of the Costs the party is to have new Process 21. A man was taken upon an Excommunicato Capiendo and the Significavit did not mention That he was Commorant within the Diocess of the Bishop at the time of the Excommunication and for that cause the party was discharged And in an Action where an Excommunication was pleaded in Bar and the Certificate of the Bishop of Landaph shewed of it but did not mention by what Bishop the party was Excommunicated it was for that reason adjudged void 22. Upon a Contract Sentence in the Ecclesiastical Court was That the Defendant should marry the Plaintiff he did not do it for which cause he was Excommunicated The Defendant appealed to the Delegates by whom the Cause was remitted to the Judge à Quo who Sentenced him again where he was also Excommunicated again for non-performance of the Sentence He appealed to the Court of Audience and then had 〈◊〉 He was taken by a Capias Excom upon the first Excommunication upon a Habeas Corpus it was Resolved That the Absolution for the latter had not purged the First Excommunication quia Ecclesia decepta fuit 2 That the Appeal did not suspend the Excommunication although it might suspend the Sentence 23. In Weston and Ridges Case it was Resolved That upon an Information exhibited in the Ecclesiastical Court for laying of violent hands upon a Clerk and Costs there given against the Defendant for which he was Excommunicated for not paying them a Prohibition should issue forth because it was not at the Suit of the party and Costs are not grantable there upon an Information 24 In the Case of Prohibitions it was Resolved Mich. 8 Jac. That if a man be Excommunicated by the Ordinary where he ought not as after a General Pardon c. And the Defendant being negligent doth not sue a Prohibition but remains Excommunicate by Forty daies and upon Certificate in Chancery is taken by the Kings Writ de Excommunicato Capiendo no Prohibition lies in this Case because he is taken by the Kings Writ Then it was moved what Remedy the party hath who is wrongfully Excommunicated to which it was Answered he hath Three Remedies viz. 1
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
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
Scorto Natus in Ecclesiâ—m Domini usque ad decimam generationem Yet the Pope doth usually dispence with that Canon specially where such Illegitimates live commendably and follow not the vicious practice of their Parents In illis qui paterna vitia non sequuntur possunt suffragari virtutes quae inducent Sâ—mmum Pontificem ad Dispensandum si morum honestas eos Commendabiles reddat c. Presbyterorum 56. Distin And lest such should conceive themselves causlesly injured by that Prohibition the Canonists assign three Reasons for it the one is the Dignity of the Clergy and the Sacraments which ought not to be committed to Infamous persons Another is in detestation of their Parents Crime which commonly extends also to their Children The third is the Parents Incontinency and because the Children do for the most part inherit their Parents Vices cap. Si gens Angelorum 56. Distin Yet a Modern Historian speaking of Pope Leo the Seventh An. 935. says out of Luitprandus that Bozon Bishop of Placentia Theobald of Millain and another great Prelate were all the Bastards of Hugo King of Italy by his three Queens Bezola Rosa and Stephana whom he termed Venus Juno and Semalo vid. Prideaux 's Compend Introduct of Hist p. 106. Edit 5. Next follows the matter of Divorce which is the separation of Married persons by force of the Sentence of an Ecclesiastical Judge qualified to pronounce the same Adultery in either party is the common though not the only cause of Divorce Some there are it seems of great Reputation in the Church for this is Quaestio tam Theologiae quam Juris who positively condemn it as unlawful for a Man or Woman to live with their Husband or Wife respectively if either of them be notoriously guilty of Adultery Of which Opinion was St. Hierom saying That a man is Sub maledictione si Adulteram retineat And St. Chrysostome Fatuus iniquus qui retinet Meretricem Patronus enim Turpitudinis est qui celat Crimen uxoris So that it was none of Cato's wisdom nor any great piece of kindness done his Friend Hortensius to lend him his wife Martia whose Chastity deserv'd a better requital Socrates also is reported to be as kind-hearted in this matter as ever Cato was and they are both said to lend their Wives as freely as a man lends an Utensil As these Wife men were beyond the reach of a Diovorce so they were more serious than to blush at Cornutism the common Fate of such Philosophers St. Basil was of Opinion That it was lawful for a Woman still to cohabit with an adulterous Husband to which purpose he made a Canon and commanded it to be done in his Church as appears in his Epistle to Amphilochius 1. Can. 9. 21. This also was the Sentence of St. Austin to Pollentius and in his Book de Adulterinis Conjugiis David received his wife Michal who had lived with another man St. Basil it seems though he be of opinion that the Woman should still live with the Adulterous Husband yet does not think it fit that the man should be so obliged as to his Adulterous Wife The Council of Eliberis refused to give the Sacrament to a Clergy-man that did not instantly expel from his house his Wife whom he knew to commit Adultery And by the Council of Neo-Caesarea he was to be deposed from his Dignity in the same case In the Council of Trent there was a Canon made having an Anathema added to it which condemned those that say That the Bond of Marriage is dissolved by Adultery and that either of the parties may contract another Matrimony whilst the other liveth And by the Fifth Anathematism of that Council 22. July 1563. were condemned Divorces allowed in Justinian's Code which Anathematism was added at the instance of the Cardinal of Lorain to oppose the Opinion of the Calvinists In the same Council upon the Article of Divorce it was said by one of the Fathers there that the Matrimonial Conjunction was distinguish'd into Three parts the Bond the Cohabitation and the Carnal Copulation inferring that there were as many Separations also and that the Ecclesiastical Prelate had power to separate the Married or to give them a Divorce in respect of the Two latter the Matrimonial Bond still standing sure so that neither can marry again Yet the Gospel admits but of one cause of Divorce viz. Fornication which should seem to be understood de Vinculo because Divorce in the other respects may have many Causes Of all Personal Actions within the Ecclesiastical Cognizance that of Defamation seems to be of the tenderest concern if that be observed which Solomon says That a Good Name is to be chosen before great Riches where by Name nothing can be understood other than a mans Credit Fame and Reputation in the World So that the Inference is clear a Defamer is the worst of Thieves the Sacrilegious ones excepted yet were it not for the sweetness of Revenge and the encouragement of the Law such Actions might be better spar'd than what it costs to maintain them and such ill-scented Suits do savour worse being kept alive in a Tribunal than they would by being buried in Oblivion specially if the Defamed considered that to forget Injuries is the best use we can make of a bad Memory This Defamation is not properly that which we call Detractio for Detractio in its proper signification is alienae famae occulta injusta violatio but Defamation though it be an unjust yet it is not an occult violation of another mans Fame or Reputation they have indeed both the same end but they do not both take the same way to that end they both aim and design the extinguishing or diminishing the Credit and Repute which one man hath in the mind and good opinion of another but the one doth it more openly and publickly at least not in so clandestine way as the other This Defamatio is of near affinity to that which we call Contumelia which is an unlawful violation of a persons Honour and Reputation by undecent and false Speeches Gestures or Actions on purpose to disgrace him only in this also they differ that Defamatio may be of one man to another in the absence of the Defamed but Contumelia is not but to the party present vel absenti tanquam praesenti that is in the prrsence of such as have a relative representation of the person Contumeliously so reproached Touching Actions of Defamation there are two Questions raised rather by the Casuists than Canonists the one Whether the Heirs of the Defamer be obliged to make restitution of Dammage to the Defamed in case the Defamer died before satisfaction made the other Whether satisfaction for the dammage done by Defamation be to be made to the Heirs of the Defamed in case he died before such dammages were recovered by him Although both these Questions are answered in the Negative by
whatsoever Name or Names they may be called in their Convocation in time coming which alwaies shall be assembled by the Kings Writ unless the same Clergy may have the Kings most Royal assent and License to make promise and execute such Canons Constitutions and Ordinances Provincial or Synodical upon pain of every one of the said Clergy doing the contrary to this Act and thereof convicted to suffer Imprisonment and making Fine at the Kings will Since this year from Archbishop Cranmer to this day all Convocations are to have the Kings leave to debate on matters of Religion and their Canons besides his Royal assent an Act of Parliament for their Confirmation And as to the General Councils there are not any of them of use in England except the first Four General Councils which are established into a Law by King and Parliament The Learned Bishop Prideaux in his Synopsis of Councils gives us the definition of Synodographie and says It is such a Methodical Synopsis of Councils and other Ecclesiastical Meetings as whereby there may be a clear discovery to him that doubts how any Case may be enquired after and what may be determined concerning the same And then immediately after gives us the definition of a Council which he calls a Free Publick Ecclesiastical Meeting especially of Bishops as also of other Doctors lawfully deputed by divers Churches for the examining of Ecclesiastical Causes according to the Scriptures and those according to the power given by Common Suffrages without favour of parties to be determined in matters of Faith by Canons in cases of Practice by Presidents in matters of Discipline by Decrees and Constitutions Of these Councils he observes some to have been Judaical others Apostolical others Oecumenical some Controverted others Rejected and some National to all which he likewise adds Conferences 1 Under the Title of Judaical Councils he comprehends the more solemn Meetings about extraordinary affairs for the Confirming Removing or Reforming any thing as the matter required Such he observes to have been at Sichem under Josuah and Eleazer Josh 24. At Jerusalem the first under David Gad and Nathan being his Assistants 1 Chro. 13. At Carmelita under Ahab and Elias 1 King 18. At Jerusalem the Second under Hezekiah 2. Chro. 29. At Jerusalem the Third under Josiah and Hilkiah 2 Kin. 33. 2 Chro. 34. At Jerusalem the Fourth under Zorobabel and Ezra and the Chief of the Jews that return'd from the Captivity of Babylon And lastly that which is called the Synod of the Wise under John Hircanus Genebrand Chron. l. 2 p. 197. 2 The Apostolical Councils he observes to have been for the substituting of Matthias in the place of Judas Act. 1. For the Election of Seven Deacons Act. 6. For not pressing the Ceremonial Law Act. 15. 11. For the toleration of some Legal Ceremonies for a time to gain the Weak by such condescension Matth. 21. 18. For composing the Apostles Creed For obtruding to the Church 85 Canons under the notion of the Apostles authority concerning which there are many Controversies Lastly for the Meeting at Antioch where among Nine Canons the Eighth commanded Images of Christ to be substituted in the room of Heathenish Idols the other pious Canons being destitute of the Synods authority vid. Bin. Tom. 1. p. 19. Longum p. 147. 3 Of Oecumenical or General Councils some were Greek or Eastern others were Latin or Western The more Famous of the Oecumenical Greek Councils were the Nicene the first of Constantinople the first of Ephesus the first of Chalcedon Of Constantinople the second of Constantinople the third The Nicene the second The more Famous of the Oecumenical Latin Councils were at Ariminum the Lateran at Lions at Vienna the Florentine the Lateran the fifth and lastly at Trent 4 Of Controverted Councils if that distinction be admissable according to the Classis thereof digested by Bellarmine the Computation is at Constantinople the fourth at Sardis at Smyrna at Quinisext at Francfort at Constance and at Basil 5 Of Rejected Councils whereby are intended such as either determine Heretical Opinions or raise Schisms the Computation is at Antioch at Milain at Seleucia at Ephesus the second at Constantinople at Pisa the first and at Pisa the second 6 Of National Synods which comprehend the Provincials of every Metropolitan or Diocesan Bishop the distribution is into Italian Spanish French German Eastern African Britain 7 To these may be added Ecclesiastical Conferences which were only certain Meetings of some Divines wherein nothing could be Canonically determined and therefore needless to be here particularly inserted vid. B. Prideaux Synops of Counc vers fin The grand Censure of the Church whereby it punisheth obstinate Offenders is by way of Excommunication which though the Canonists call Traditio Diabolo or giving the Devil as it were Livery and Seizin of the Excommunicate person yet the Romanists have a Tradition that St. Bernard Excommunicated the Devil himself Sanctus Bernardus plenus virtutibus quadam die praesentibus Episcopis clero populo Excommunicavit quendam Diabolum Incubum qui quandam mulierem in Britannia per septeunium vexabat sic Liberata est ab eo Chron. Jo. Bromton de Temp. H. 1. A miraculous Excommunication and a Sovereign Remedy against Diabolical incubations The Excommunication which St. Oswald pronounced against one who would not be perswaded to be reconciled to his Adversary had nothing so good though a more strange effect for that Excommunicated him out of his Wits and had it not been for Wolstan who as miraculously cur'd him you might have found him if not in Purgatory then in Bedlam at this day Illi cujus es says Sanctus Oswaldus Te commendo carnem Sathanae tuam trado Statim ille dentibus stridere spumas jacere caput rotare incipit Qui tamen à Wolstano sanatus cum Pacem adhuc recusaret iterum tertio est arreptus simili modo quousque ex corde injuriam remitteret offensam If you have not faith enough to believe this on the Credit of Abbot Brompton who Chronicled from the year 588 in which St. Austin came into England to the death of King Richard the First which was in the year 1198. if you have not I say faith enough for the premisses you are not like to be supplied with any on this side Rome unless you have it from Henry de Knighton Canon of Leyster who wrote the Chronicle De Eventibus Angliae from King Edgars time to the death of King Richard the Second for he in his Second Book de Temp. W. 2. doth put it under his infallible pen for an undeniable Truth And indeed is much more probable than what the said Abbot reports touching St. Austins raising to life the Priest at Cumpton in Oxfordshire 150 years after his death to absolve a penitent Excommunicate that at the same time rose also out of his grave and walked out of the Church at St. Austins command That no
complaint thereof made to the Pope the Answer was That any man might be Cited to the Arches out of any Diocess in England Also That the Archbishop may hold his Consistory in any Diocess within his Jurisdiction and Province That the Archbishop hath concurrent Jurisdiction in the Diocess of every Bishop as well as the Archdeacon and That the Archbishop of Canterbury prescribes to hold Plea of all persons in England But as to his power of having a Consistory in the Diocess of every Bishop this was in this Case denied but only where he was the Popes Legate whereof there were Three sorts 1. Legates à Latere and these were Cardinals which were sent à Latere from the Pope 2. A Legate born and these were the Archbishops of Canterbury York and Mentz c. 3. A Legate given and these have Authority by special Commission from the Pope Likewise in the Case of Jones against Boyer C. B it was also said by Dr. Martyn That the Archbishop hath Ordinary Jurisdiction in all the Diocesses of his Province and that this is the cause that he may Visit 13. The Archbishop of Canterbury Anciently had Primacy as well over all Ireland as England from whom the Irish Bishops received their Consecration for Ireland had no other Archbishop until the year 1152. For which reason it was declared in the time of the Two first Norman Kings That Canterbury was the Metropolitan Church of England Scotland and Ireland and the Isles adjacent the Archbishop of Canterbury was therefore sometimes styled a Patriarch and Orbis Britannici Pontifex insomuch that Matters recorded in Ecclesiastical Affairs did run thus viz. Anno Pontificatus Nostri primo secundo c. He was also Legatus Natus that is he had a perpetual Legantine power annext to his Archbishoprick nigh a thousand years since And at General Councils he had the Precedency of all other Archbishops abroad and at home he had some special Marks of Royalty as to be the Patron of a Bishoprick as he was of Rochester to coyn Mony to make Knights and to have the Wardships of all those who held Lands of him Jure Hominii although they held in Capite other â—ands of the King as was formerly hinted He is said to be Inthroned when he is invested in the Archbishoprick And by the Stat. of 25 H 8. he hath power to grant Licenses and Dispensations in all Cases heretofore sued for in the Court of Rome not repugnant to the Law of God or the Kings Prerogative As also to allow a Clerk to hold a Benefice in Commendam or in Trust to allow a Clerk rightly qualified to hold Two Benefices with Cure of Souls to allow a Beneficed Clerk for some certain causes to be non-Resident for some time and to Dispense in several other Cases prohibited by the Letters of the Canon Law Likewise the Archbishop of Canterbury Consecrates other Bishops confirms the Election of Bishops within his Province calls Provincial Synods according to the Kings Writ to him ever directed is chief Moderator in the Synods and Convocations he Viâ—its the whole Province appoints a Guardian of the Spiritualties during the vacancy of any Bishoprick within his Province whereby all the Episcopal Ecclesiastical Rights of that Diocess for that time belong to him all Ecclesiastical Jurisdictions as Visitations Institutions c. He may retain and qualifie Eight Chaplains which is more by Two than any Duke is allowed by Statute to do and hath power to hold divers Courts of Judicature for the decision of Controversies pertaining to Ecclesiastical Cognizance CHAP. III. Of Bishops and Ordinaries 1. Bishop Why so called Not above One to be in one Diocess 2. Why called Ordinary and what the Pallium Episcopale is 3. Bishopricks originally Donative Kings of England the Founders thereof 4. The manner of Election of Bishops their Confirmation and Consecration 5. Their Seals of Office in what cases they may use their own Seals 6. What follows upon Election to make them Bishops compleat the grant of their Temporalties 7. The Conge d'eslire and what follows thereupon 8. Bishopricks were Donative till the time of King John 9. What the Interest and Authority is in his several capacities 10. Episcopal Authority derived from the Crown 11. The Vse and Office of Suffragan Bishops 12. Whether a Bishop may give Institution out of his own proper Diocess and under other Seal than his own Seal of Office 13. Several things incident to a Bishop qua talis 14. Ordinary what properly he is and why so called 15. In what cases the Ordinaries Jurisdiction is not meerly Local 16. The Ordinaries power de jure Patronatûs 17. Whether the Ordinary may cite a man out of his own Diocess Also his Right ad Synodalia 18. The Ordinaries power of Visitation 19. The Dignity and true Precedency of the Bishops in England 20. Temporal Jurisdiction anciently exercised by Bishops in this Realm the Statute of 17 Car. 1. against it Repealed and they Restored to it by the Stat. of 13 Car. 2. as formerly 21. The Act made in the Reign of Ed. 6. concerning the Election of Bishops the Endeavours thereby to take away Episcopal Jurisdiction the Nomination of all Bishops was Anciently Sole in the King 22. The Bishops of London are Deans of the Episcopal Colledge 23. A Case at Common Law touching a Lease made by one Bishop during the life of another of the same Diocess in Ireland 1. BISHOP Episcopus from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 supra and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 intendere an Overseer or Superintendent so called from that watchfulness care charge and faithfulness which by his Place and Dignity he hath and oweth to the Church A word which all Antiquity hath appropriated to signifie the Chief in Superintendency over the whole Church within his Diocess wherein are divers inferiour Pastors This Oversight or Care the Hebrews call Pekudah Of this Office or Ecclesiastical Dignity there can be but one at a time in one and the same Diocess whence it is that Cornelius Bishop of Rome as Eusebius relates upbraided Novatius for his ignorance in that point when he could not but know there were no less than 46 Presbyters in that Church Oecumenius and St. Chrysostome affirming also as many at Philippi For in this restrained sense as the word Bishop is now taken it cannot be imagined that there should be more than one in one City or Diocess at the same time consonant whereunto the Synod of Nice prohibited Two or more Bishops to have their Seats at once in the same City This Novatius aforesaid was a Priest of Rome 254 years after Christ he abhorred Second Marriages and was condemned as an Heretick in a Synod at Rome the same year Every Bishop many Centuries after Christ was universal Incumbent of his Diocess received all the Profits which were but Offerings of Devotion out of which he paid the Salaries of such as Officiated under himâ—
been only a reviver of an Ancient power which had been formerly invested in his Predecessors and in all other Christian Princes If we consult the Records of elder Times it will readily appear not only that the Roman Emperours of the House of France did Nominate the Popes themselves but that after they had lost that power they retained the Nomination of the Bishops in their own Dominions The like done also by the German Emperours by the Kings of England and by the Ancient Kings of Spain The Investure being then performed per Annulum Baculum that is by delivering of a Ring together with a Crosier or Pastoral Staff to the party nominated 22. By Ancient Right the Bishops of London are accounted Deans of the Episcopal Colledge and being such are by their place to signifie the pleasure of their Metropolitan to all the Bishops of the Province to execute his Mandates and disperse his Missives on all emergency of Affairs As also to preside in Convocations or Provincial Synods during the vacancy of the See or in the necessary absence of the Metropolitan 23. In O Brian and Knivan's Case the Case was That King Ed. 6. under his Privy Seal signified to Sir J. C. and to the Lord Chancellor and others in Ireland That he elected and appointed J. B. to be Bishop of Ossory Requiring them to Instal him in the Bishoprick The Deputy being removed the Chancellor and the other made a Commission under the Great Seal of Ireland to the Bishop of Dublin to Consecrate him which was done accordingly and he did his Fealty and recovered the Temporalties out of the Kings hands Afterwards in the life of J. B. Queen Mary elected J. T. to be Bishop there who was likewis◠Consecrated and who made a Lease of divers Lands of the Bishoprick for 101 years which was confirmed by the Dean and Chapter J. B. died and after J. T. died J. W. was elected Bishop The Questions in the Case were 1. Whether J. B. was well created Bishop 2. Whether this Lease made by J. T. being Bishop de facto but not de jure in the life of J. B. he surviving J. B. should be good to bind the Successor Resolved The Commission was well executed although the Deputy Sir J. C. were removed 2. Resolved That before the Statute of 2 Eliz. the King might by Patent without a Writ of Congé d'eslire create a Bishop for that was but a Form or Ceremony 3. Resolved That although J. T. was Bishop de facto in the life of J. B. that the Lease made by him for 101 years was void though it was confirmed by the Dean and Chapter and should not bind the Successor But all Judicial Acts made by him as Admissions Institutions c. should be good but not such voluntary Acts as tended to the depauperation of the Successor A Bishop made a Lease for three Lives not warranted by the Statute of 1 Eliz. rendring Rent the Successor accepted the Rent It was Resolved It should bind him during his time so as he shall not avoid the Lease which otherwise was voidable CHAP. IV. Of the Guardian of the Spiritualties 1. What the Office of such a Guardian is and by whom Constituted 2. The power of such Guardians in vacancy of Archbishopricks 3. What Remedy in case they refuse to grant such Licenses or Dispensations as are legally grantable 4. Who is Guardian of the Spiritualties of Common Right 5. What things a Guardian of the Spiritualties may do 1. GVardian of the Spiritualties Custos Spiritualium vel Spiritualitatis is he to whom the Spiritual Jurisdiction of any Diocess during the vacancy of the See is committed Dr. Cowell conceives that the Guardian of the Spiritualties may be either Guardian in Law or Jure Magistratus as the Archbishop is of any Diocess within his Province or Guardian by Delegation as he whom the Archbishop or Vicar General doth for the time depute Guardian of c. by the Canon Law pertains to the Appointment of the Dean and Chapter c. ad abolend Extr. Nè sede vacante aliquid innovetur But with us in England to the Archbishop of the Province by Prescription Howbeit according to Mr. Gwin in the Preface to his Readings divers Deans and Chapters do challenge this by Ancient Charters from the Kings of this Realm Cowell verb. Custos This Ecclesiastical Office is specially in request and indeed necessarily in the time of the Vacancy of the Episcopal See or when the Bishop is in remotis agendis about the publick Affairs of the King or State at which time Presentations must be made to the Guardian of the Spiritualties which commonly is the Dean and Chapter or unto the Vicar General who supplies the place and room of the Bishop And therefore if a man Recover and have Judgment for him in a Quare Impedit and afterwards the Bishop who is the Ordinary dieth In this case the Writ to admit the Clerk to the Benefice must be directed to the Guardian of the Spiritualties Sede vacante to give him Admission But if before his Admission another be created Bishop of that See and Consecrated Bishop in that case the power of the Guardian of the Spiritualties doth cease and the party may have a new Writ to the new Bishop to admit his Clerk A Guardian of the Spiritualties may admit a Clerk but he cannot confirm a Lease 2. The Guardian of the Spiritualties takes place as well in the vacancy of Archbishopricks as Bishopricks and hath power of granting Licenses Dispensations and the like during such Vacancies by the Statute of 25 H. 8. whereby it is provided and enacted That if it happen the See of the Archbishop of Canterbury to be void that then all such Licenses Dispensations Faculties Instruments Rescripts and other Writings which may be granted by virtue of the said Act shall during such vacation of the said See be had done and granted under the Name and Seal of the Guardian of the Spiritualties of the said Archbishoprick according to the tenor and form of the said Act and shall be of like force value and effect as if they had been granted under the Name and Seal of the Archbishop for the time being Where it is also further enacted 3. That if the said Guardian of the Spiritualties shall refuse to grant such Licenses Dispensations Faculties c. to any person that ought upon a good just and reasonable cause to have the same then and in such case the Lord Chancellor of England or the Lord Keeper of the Great Seal upon any complaint thereof made may direct the Kings Writ to the said Guardian of the Spiritualties during such Vacancy as aforesaid refusing to grant such Licenses c. enjoyning him by the said Writ under a certain penalty therein limited at the discretion of the said Lord Chancellor or Lord Keeper that he shall in due form grant such License Dispensation Faculty
Bishops Visitation mutually to certifie each other under their Hands and Seals the Names and Crimes of all such as were Presented in the said Visitation Nor shall any Chancellor or other Ecclesiastical Judge suffer any Judicial Act to be sped otherwise than in open Court or in presence of the Register or his Deputy or other person by Law allowed to speed the same nor shall have without the Bishops consent any more Seals of Office than one Nor shall any man be admitted a Chancellor or to exercise any Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction under the age of 26 years and learned in the Civil and Ecclesiastical Laws and is at least a Master of Arts or Bachelor of Law and shall first have taken the Oath of Supremacy in the Bishops presence or in open Court and have subscribed the Articles of Religion and swear that to the utmost of his understanding he will deal uprightly and justly in his Office without respect favour or reward 4. Sutton Chancellor of the Bishop of Gloucester moved for a Prohibition to stay a Suit before the Commissioners Ecclesiastical for that Articles were there exhibited against him because he being a Divine and having a Rectory with Cure of Souls and never brought up in the Science of the Civil or Canon Laws or having any Intelligence in them took upon him the Office of the Chancellor of the Bishop of Gloucester whereas there were divers Canons and Ecclesiastical Constitutions and also directions from the late King James and from the King that now is That none should be admitted to have those Offices of Chancellorship to a Bishop unless he were instructed and learned in the Canon and Civil Laws because divers Cases triable in the said Court are of weight and the Judges there ought to have knowledge of the Laws otherwise they cannot administer Right to the Kings Subjects Upon these Articles Mr. Sutton being examined confessed that he was a Divine and had a Spiritual Living and that the Office of the Chancellorship of the Bishop is grantable for life and that such a Bishop of Gloucester had granted to him the Office for his life which the Dean and Chapter had Confirmed whereby he had a Freehold therein and ought to enjoy it during his life And that notwithstanding this Answer they intended to proceed against him wherefore he prayed to have a Prohibition but the Court denied it for if he be a person unskilful in these Laws and by Law ought not to enjoy it they may peradventure examine that for although a Lay-person by his Admission and Institution to a Benefice hath a Freehold yet he may be sued in the Spiritual Court and deprived for that Cause but if he hath wrong he may peradventure by Assize try it therefore a Prohibition was denied 5. The Consistory Court of each Archbishop and every Bishop of every Diocess within this Realm is holden before the Bishops Chancellor in the Cathedral Church or before his Commissary in places of his Diocess far remote and distant from the Bishops Consistory so as the Chancellor cannot call them to the Consistory with any conveniency or without great travel and vexation for which reason such Commissary is called Commissarius Foraneus From these Consistories the Appeal is to the Archbishop of either Province respectively 6. By this word Consistory is commonly understood that place or Ecclesiastical Court of Justice held by the Bishops Chancellor or Commissary in his Cathedral Church or other convenient place of his Diocess for the hearing and determining of matters and Causes of Ecclesiastical cognizance happening within that Diocess But when this word refers to the Province of Canterbury then the chief and most ancient Consistory is the Arch-bishops high Court of Arches as the Court of Appeal from all other Inferiour Consistories within the said Province The same word sometimes refers to a Synod or Council of Ecclesiastical persons conven'd together or to a Cession or Assembly of Prelates but most usually to the Spiritual Court for the deciding of matters of Ecclesiastical cognizance The word Consistory Consistorium is supposed to be borrowed of the Italians or rather Lombards signifying as much as Praetorium or Tribunal being a word utriusque juris and frequently used for a Council-house of Ecclesiastical persons or the place of Justice in the Court Christian 7. The Consistories of Archbishops and Bishops are supposed to begin within this Realm in the time of William the Conquerour which seems very conjecturable from that Charter of his which Sir Ed. Coke in the fourth part of his Institutes mentions to have found Enrolled 2 R. 2. nu 5. Which Charter and Record of great Antiquity asserting not only the Episcopal Consistories but also the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction it cannot be supposed but that it ought to be recited here in terminis per extensum viz. Willielmus gratia Dei Rex Anglorum Comitibus Vicecomitibus omnibus Francigenis quibus in Episcopatu Remigii terras habentibus salutem Sciatis vos omnes caeteri mei Fideles qui in Anglia manent quod Episcopales Leges quae non bene nec secundum Sanctorum Canonum Praecepta usque ad mea tempora in Regno Anglorum fuerunt Communi Concilio Concilio Archiepiscoporum meorum caeterorum Episcoporum Abbatum omnium Principum Regni mei Emendandas judicavi Propterea Mando Regia authoritate Praecipio ut nullus Episcopus vel Archidiaconus de Legibus Episcopalibus amplius in Hundretto Placita teneant nec causam quae ad Regimen animarum pertinet ad Judicium Secularium hominum adducant sed quicunque secundum Episcopales Leges de quacunque causa vel culpa interpellatus fuerit ad locum quem ad hoc Episcopus elegerit nominaverit veniat ibique de causa sua respondeat non secundum Hundrettum sed secundum Canones Episcopales Leges Rectum Deo Episcopo suo faciat Si vero aliquis per superbiam elatus ad Justitiam Episcopalem venire non voluerit vocetur semel secundo tertio quod si nec sic ad emendationem venerit Excommunicetur si opus fuerit ad hoc vindicand ' fortitudo Justitia Regis vel Vicecomitis adhibeatur Ille autem qui vocatus ad Justitiam Episcopi venire noluit pro unaquaque vocatione legem Episcopalem emendabit hoc etiam Defendo mea authoritate interdico ne ullus Vicecom aut praepositus aut minister Regis nec aliquis Laicus homo de Legibus quae ad Episcopum pertinent se intromittat nec aliquis Laicus homo alium hominem sine Justitia Episcopi ad Judicium adducat Judicium vero in nullo loco portetur nisi in Episcopali Sede aut in illo loco quem ad hoc Episcopus constituerit 8. For the Confirmation of this Charter Sir Ed. Coke in the foresaid part of his Institutes refers us to the Register of
de facto and by Usurpotion did use to Dispence and by the Stat. of 25 H. 8. cap. 21. the power is taken from the Pope and conferr'd Cumulative on the King And by the Stat. of 25 H. 8. the Archbishop of Canterbury may Dispence in divers cases but that doth not exclude the power of the King 10. In the same Case it was held per Curiam una voce That where a Dean is made a Bishop with a Dispensation from the King to hold the Deanary notwithstanding the Bishoprick such Dispensation continues him Dean as before by force and virtue of his former Title to all intents and purposes so as that he may confirm or make Leases or do any other Act as a Dean as if he had not been made a Bishop at all For before the Cano nor Constitution made at the Council of Laterall for the voidance of the first Benefice by taking another Benefice or Promotion it was lawful and not forbidden so to do and the nature of the Dispensation is to exempt him from the penalty and so it remains as if the Canon had never been made which appears by 11 H. 4. in the Case of the Bishop of St. Davids That such a person that had such a Dispensation being Defendant in a Quare Impedit counterpleaded the Title of the Plaintiff which he could not do by the Statute of 25 Ed. 3. unless he had been the Possessor thereof and he in possession by 4 H. 8. Dyer 1. is one who is and continues Incumbent by Institution and Induction Therefore in this case the first Title and Induction continues And in the same Case it was also agreed That such Dispensation is not any Provision for no new thing is done but the ancient Title continues And in Fitz. N. B. Brief Spoliation such a person may maintain a Spoliation and none can maintain that unless he continue his Institution and Induction Parkhur's Case 6 7 Eliz. Such a Commendam continues to the person be it that the Benefice be void by Resignation And 21 Jac. in a Quare Impedit in C. B. by Woodley against the Bishop of Exeter and Manwayring it was so Resolved and Adjudged and the words of that Dispensation are sufficient for it is to retain it during his life in Commendam aut modo quocunque de jure magis efficaci and all the profits thereto belonging ac caetera facere perimplâ—re quae ad Deconatum pertinent in tam amplis modo forma as if he had not been promoted to be a Bishop with a Non obstante to all Canons c. And so they all concluded That the Dispensation continues him Dean enabling him to Confirm Leases made by the Bishop 11. W. Libels for a Legacy in the Ecclesiastical Court against B. who moves for a Prohibition because he had there pleaded Plene Administravit and proved that by one Witness and they would not allow it Richardson before the Statute of Ed. 6. the proper Suit for Tithes was there and if they allow not one Witness to prove payment a Prohibition shall be granted And he put Morris and Eaton's Case in the Bishop of Winchester's Case where it was Ruled if the Ecclesiastical Court will not allow that Plea which is good in our Law a Prohibition shall be granted as in the Case of Tithes And he said the Case of a Legacy is all one Crook When one comes to discharge a thing by due matter of Law and proves it by one Witness if it be not allowed no Prohibition shall be granted there Richardson Our Case is proof of Plene Administravit pleaded which goes in discharge But if there be enough pleaded which goes in discharge and proves that by one Witness and not allowed a Prohibition shall be granted Hutton said That properly for a Legacy the Suit is in the Ecclesiastical Court although they may sue in the Chancery for it yet the proper Court is the Ecclesiastical Court And they said that they used to allow one Witness with other good Circumstantial proofs if they be not in some Criminal causes where of necessity there must be two Witnesses In one Hawkin's Case Farmor of an Appropriation Libels for Tithes of Lambs for seven years And there payment was proved by one Witness and a Prohibition was granted for Non-allowance Yelverton There may be a difference where the Suit is meerly Ecclesiastical for a Sum of Money as for a Legacy there the payment of the Legacy is of the nature of the thing and the Ecclesiastical Court shall have Jurisdiction of the proof and matter But if one gives a Legacy of twenty Oxen and the other pleads payment of as much money in satisfaction there they cannot proceed but at Common Law for that that the Legacy is altered And if a proof of one Witness is not accepted a Prohibition shall be granted for now it is a Legal Trial 35 H. 6. If the Principal be proper for their Court the Accessory is of the same nature Also the Suit is commenced for a Legacy and the other pleads Plene Administr there they proceed upon the Common Law For they sometimes take that for Assets which our Law does not take It was adjudged in the Kings-Bench That where a Proof by one Witness of a Release of a Legacy is disallowed a Prohibition shall be granted Crook In this Case a Proof of setting out of Tithes by one Witness disallowed a Prohibition shall be granted 12. One was obliged in the Ecclesiastical Court not to accompany with such a Woman unless to Church or to a Market overt And afterwards he was summoned to the Ecclesiastical Court to say whether he had broken his Obligation or not And Ayliffe moved for a Prohibition which was granted for that that the Forfeiture is a Temporal thing And it does not become them in the Ecclesiastical Court to draw a man in Examination for breaking of Obligations or for Offences against Statutes C. Administrator durante Minori aetate of his Brothers Son the Son died and made the Wife of H. his Executrix who called C. to account in the Ecclesiastical Court for the Goods And he pleads an Agreement between him and H. and that he gave 80 l. in satisfaction of all Accounts But they did not accept the Plea for that a Prohibition was prayed to be granted Richardson If the party received the money in satisfaction then there shall not be a Prohibition granted but if there were only an Agreement without payment of money then otherwise Crook It is a Spiritual matter and they have Jurisdiction to determine of all things concerning that But the Agreement prevents that it cannot come into the Ecclesiastical Court G. Libels against B. before the High Commissioners for an Assault made upon him being a Spiritual person And Attbowe prayed a Prohibition for that although their Commission by express words gives them power in that case yet that Commission is granted upon the Statute of
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
by the Court that this is a Pension for which Suit shall be in the Ecclesiastical Court 42. In the Case between Draiton and Cotterill against Smith for a Prohibition it was said by Coke Chief Justice That if the Parson sues in the Ecclesiastical Court for Tithes and the other pleads a Modus to the Vicar this Modus now can never come in question by this Suit between the Parson and him for Tithes due unto the Parson but this is to be questioned and determined there in the Ecclesiastical Court to whom the Tithes do belong whether to the Parson or to the Vicar And this hath been divers times Adjudged in this Court and in the Court of C. B. in Bushe's Case for Pankeridge-Church and it hath always been clearly held That if the Right of Tithes come into question between the Parson and the Vicar to which of them the same doth belong This is a Suit properly belonging to the Ecclesiastical Court to hear and determine the same and in such case they are not there to be ousted of their Jurisdiction And this being now a Question between the Parson and the Vicar to which of them Tithes did belong for which the Modus is alledged to be paid therefore no Prohibition is to be granted in this case though there be a Modus suggested to be paid unto the Vicar for all Tithes here due to the Vicar and Parson the Parson suing for the Tithes there as due unto himself and not unto the Vicar And so the Question is as touching the Right of Tithes between the Parson and the Vicar which is a Suit proper for the Ecclesiastical Court And this is to be observed for a sure Rule in such a Case never to have a Prohibition granted The Reason of this is because that the Modus suggested to be paid cannot come in question upon this Suggestion of this payment unto the Vicar but only the Right of Tithes to whom they belong whether to the Parson or to the Vicar and divers Judgments have been accordingly given in the like Case And so by the Rule of the whole Court a Prohibition was denied 43. Whether and how far and in what manner the Ecclesiastical Court may exercise its Jurisdiction in cognizance of a Modus Decimandi is at large argued and debated at the Bench in Harding's Case against Goseling where in a Prohibition to stay Proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Court upon a Suit there for Tithes where G. Libelled against H. for a Modus Decimandi being not paid and there H. alledged another Modus Decimandi which Allegation the Ecclesiastical Court refusing to admit a Prohibition was thereupon prayed in B. R. In this case Doderidge Justice said That the Modus Decimandi is as well due to the Parson as Tithe is at the Common Law and if the Parson do Libel in the Ecclesiastical Court for a Modus Decimandi as he may do and another Modus is there alledged and this refused the Ecclesiastical Court may try and determine this matter touching this Modus and no cause to grant a Prohibition for this Refusal But if the Ecclesiastical Court doth deny to admit the Allegation for the Modus upon this ground only because the practice of the Ecclesiastical Law and our Law do differ in the manner of Proof as for default of two Witnesses one being allowed at Common Law but not at the Ecclesiastical Law In this Case a Prohibition is grantable but otherwise the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction may as well try the Modus Decimandi as the Right of Tithes But if a Parson doth Libel there for Tithes in kind and a Modus is alledged and there pleaded but refused to be admitted or allowed in that Case a Prohibition is grantable upon such Refusal Haughton Justice In this Case a Prohibition ought to be granted otherwise in such cases upon every small difference alledged in the Modus that Court may try and determine the validity of every Modus Decimandi which the Ecclesiastical Court cannot do by the Law for that Court is not permitted by our Law to try a Modus Decimandi and therefore that Court proceeding to try this Modus which is determinable by Common Law and not in the Ecclesiastical Court a Prohibition ought to be granted But Doderidge Contra No Prohibition is in this case to be granted for the Ecclesiastical Court may well try and determine this Modus by that Law The Libel being there originally for the Modus But if touching the Proof of this Modus as aforesaid the difference of proceedings between the two Laws one Witness being sufficient at the Common Law not so at the Ecclesiastical be the ground of the Refusal of the Allegation then a Prohibition is to be awarded so is 1 R. 3. and 10 H. 7. but if the Ecclesiastical Court only proceed to try the Modus for which the Libel was there this by Proof may well be there examined Croke Justice at this time delivered no opinion at all in this Case Afterwards this Case being moved again Doderidge If a Parson do Libel in the Ecclesiastical Court for a Modus whereas in truth there was no Modus but only a composition of late time between the Parson and the Parishioners to pay so much yearly for Tithes and not otherwise In this Case because that the Common Law and the Ecclesiastical do differ in the point of Prescription Ten years continuance being a good Prescription by that Law but not so by Ours in this case a Prohibition is grantable Houghton A Modus Decimandi is properly to be tried and determined by the Common Law and not in the Ecclesiastical Court for that these two Laws differ in many things as in point of proof of a Modus and in the point of Prescription Croke A Special Modus being Libelled for in the Ecclesiastical Court is there to be tried Doderidge If the Ecclesiastical Court doth refuse to allow of the Proof allowable at the Common Law a Prohibition lies to stay proceedings for Tithes there And where there is a Modus if they refuse to pay this the Parson may sue for this Modus in the Ecclesiastical Court and this is to be tried there But if in such case where there is a Modus if the Parson will Libel to have his Tithe in kind and the other shews there this Modus which they will not allow of a Prohibition lies and this shall be tried by the Common Law The Court declares That they would see the Suggestion and therefore by the Rule of the Court they were to make their Suggestion and to shew the same to the Court as they would stand unto it and in the mean time the Suit in the Ecclesiastical Court to be stayed 44. To conclude this Chapter it may not be impertinent to enquire when and how the Canon Law was introduced into this Realm of England In the Case of a Commendam that was Adjudged in Ireland it was observed That after the
therein for the Indictment concluding contra formam Statuti It cannot be good as for an offence at the Common Law But afterwards another Exception was taken by Grimstone because the offence was alledged to be done in the Church of Shoreditch aforesaid and Shoreditch was not named before And upon view of the Indictment it appearing to be so all the Court held that the Indictment was void And for this cause the Defendant was discharged In the Ecclesiastical Laws of Ina King of the West Saxons cap. 6. Qui in Templo pugnaverit 120 Solidis noxiam Sarcito Ibid. Aliud Exemp cap. 6. Si quis in Ecclesia pugnet centum viginti Sol. emendet c. alias 60. emendet pro vita Also among the Ecclesiastical Laws of Hoel Dha King of Wales l. 10. De pugna quae in Coemiterio agitur 14 Librae sunt reddendae Likewise in l. 1. LL. Eccles Edovardi Sen. R. Angliae Guthurni R. Danorum in East-anglia Hoc primo Decreverunt ut Ecclesiae pax intra suos parietes inviolate servetur And in Cap. 2 3. LL. Eccl. Canuti Regis valde rectum est ut Ecclesiae pax intra parietes suos semper inconvulsa permaneat quicunque eam perfregerit de vita omnibus in misericordia Regis sit Et si quis pacem Ecclesiae Dei violabit ut intra parietes ejus homicidium hoc inemendabile sit c. nisi Rex ei vitam concedat 7. Where Prescription is alledg'd for Right to a Seat in a Church or for Priority in that Seat the Common Law hath took cognizance thereof as in the case of Carleton against Hutton where C. claimed the upper place in a Seat in the Church and H. disturb'd him in a violent manner and the Bishop of the Diocess sent an Inhibition to C. until the matter were determined before him And by the Court a Prohibition was awarded because it does not belong as Reported to the Spiritual Court And as well the priority in the Seat as the Seat it self may be claimed by Prescription and an Action upon the Case lies for it at Common Law Ve. Litt. 121 122. The Ordinary hath in him the right of distribution of the Seats in a Church yet so as that prescription shall take place whether it refers to the right of any particular Parishioner or to the power of the Church-wardens The Case was G. brought an Action of Trespass for the breaking of his Seat in the Church and cutting of the Timber in small pieces and carrying them away c. The Defendant pleads in Bar That they were the Church-wardens and that the Plaintiff had erected that Seat without the License of the Ordinary and it was an hindrance to the Parishioners c. and that they as Church-wardens the said Seat c. the which is the same Trespass The Plaintiff demurrs and Judgment for him For admitting that the Church-wardens may remove Seats in the Church at their pleasure yet they cannot cut the Timber of the Pew And thereupon they confessed the Trespass Ve. 6 E. 4. 7. 9 E. 4. 14. 8 E. 4. 6. 18 E. 4. 8. 21 H. 7. 21. 12 H. 7. 27. 11 H. 4. 12. Where there is a Parson Impropriate he hath the best right to the chief Seat in the Chancel as was Resolved in Sir William Hall's Case again Ellis where E. Farmor of a Rectory Impropriate Libels in the Ecclesiastical Court pro Sedile in dextra parte Cancellae and in his Additional Libel he Libels pro loco primo and principally in dextra parte Cancellae The Defendant there surmizes to have a Prohibition Quod est antiqua Parochia antiqua Cancella and that he is seized of an Ancient Messuage in that Parish and that he and all those c. have used to sit in dextra parte Cancellae praedict to hear c. And it was Resolved by the Court That of common Right the Parson Impropriate and per consequens his Farmor ought to have the chief Seat in the Chancel because he ought to repair it But by Prescription another Parishioner may have it But in this case a Consultation was awarded with a quoad c. because the Libel and the Additional that now is all one is pro primo Loco c. and the Surmize is only pro Sedile in dextra parte and not pro loco primo in it 8. The Church in construction of Law is Domus mansionalis Omnipotentis Dei and therefore it is Burglary for a man to break and enter a Church in the night of intent to steal c. And so sacred is the Church and Church-yard reputed in Law That Ecclesiastical persons whilst they are doing any Divine Service in either of them or in any other place dedicated to God may not be Arrested Yea Anciently the Church and Church-yard was a Sanctuary and the foundation of Abjuration for whoever was not capable of this Sanctuary could not have the benefit of Abjuration and therefore he that committed Sacriledge could not Abjure because he could not take the priviledge of Sanctuary This Abjuration was when one having committed Felony fled for safeguard of his life to the Sanctuary of a Church or Church-yard and there before the Coroner of that place within 40 days confessed the Felony and took an Oath for his perpetual Banishment out of the Realm into a Foreign not Infidel Countrey chusing rather Perdere patriam quam vitam But this Abjuration founded upon the priviledge of Sanctuary is wholly abrogated and taken away by an Act made 21 Jac. Reg. whereby it is Enacted That no Sanctuary or priviledge of Sanctuary should be admitted or allowed in any case And here Note That this kind of Abjuration hath no relation to that of Recusants by force of the Stat. of 35 Eliz cap. 1. because such Abjuration hath no dependency upon any Sanctuary But as to the other Abjuration in relation to Felonies Sacriledge excepted no Abjuration or Sanctuary being allowed in cases of Treason or Petit Treason the Law was so favourable for the preservation of Sanctuary in the Church or Church-yard That if a Prisoner for Felony had before his attainder or conviction escaped and taken Sanctuary and being pursued by his Keepers or others were brought back again to the Prison he might upon his Arraignment have pleaded the same and should have been restored again to the Sanctuary of the Church or Church-yard 9. The defacing of Tombs Sepulchres or Monuments erected in any Church Chancel Common Chappel or Church-yard is it seems punishable by the Common Law and for which the Erectors or Builders thereof during their lives and after their decease their Heirs shall have the Action But the Erecting thereof ought not to be to the hinderance of Divine Service And albeit the Freehold of the Church is in the Parson yet if the Lord of a Mannor or any other that hath an House
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
c. may have an Action of Trespass 36. In an Action upon the Case D. shewed he was seized of a Messuage and Land in P. to the same belonging and in the Parish of P. time whereof c. and yet is a Chappel in the North part of the Chancel called the Parsons Chancel and the Plaintiff and all those c. have used to sustain and repair the said Chancel and have used for him and his Family to sit in Seats of the said Chancel and to Bury there the persons dying in the said Messuage and that none other during all the said time c. without their License have used to sit there or to be buried there and that the Defendants Praemissorum non ignari malitiose impediverunt him to enter and sit in the said Seats The Defendant said That the Earl of N. was seized of the Honour of F. and the said Chappel was parcel of the said Honour and that the Defendants being Servants of the said Earl and resident within the said Honour did divers times in the time of Divine Service sit in the Seats of the said Chancel by the command of the said Earl upon which it was Demurred Exceptions were taken to the Declaration because he prescribes to have a Liberty appertaining to his House and doth not shew it is an Ancient House And 2 That the Allegation of the disturbance was ill being general without alleding a special Disturbance and how he was disturbed Resolved That when it is supposed he is seized in Fee of a Capital Messuage and time c. it is there included that it is an ancient Messuage and so might have such a priviledge And for the second it is sufficient to alledge a general Disturbance as is usual in the Case of a Fair or Market 37. D. was Indicted upon the Statute of 5 E. 6. for striking in Paul's Church-yard he pleaded that he was by the Queens Letters Patents created Garter King of Arms and demanded Judgment because he was not so named It was the opinion of the Court that because it was a parcel of his Dignity and not of his Office only and because the Patent is Creamus coronamus nomen imponimus de Garter Rex heraldorum that therefore in all Suits brought against him he ought to be named by this name and thereupon he was discharged of the Indictment And in Penhallo's Case who was Indicted upon the same Statute for drawing of Dagger in the Church of B. against J. S. and doth not say with intent to strike him for which cause the Judgment was quashed Likewise in Child's Case who was Indicted for striking in the Church-yard and it was apud generalem Sessionem Pacis tent apud Blandford and it was not said in Comitatu praedicto for which reason the party was discharged though the County was in the Margin 38. In Pym's Case before-mentioned Corven did Libel in the Ecclesiastical Court against Pym for a Seat in a Church in Devonshire And Pym by Serjeant Hutton moved for a Prohibition upon this Reason That himself is seized of a House in the said Parish and that he and all whose Estate he hath in the House have had a Seat in an Isle of the Church And it was Resolved by the Court That if a Lord of a Mannor or other person who hath his House and Land in the Parish time out of mind and had a Seat in an Isle of the same Church so that the Isle is proper to his Family and have maintained it at their charges That if the Bishop would dispossess him he shall have a Prohibition But for a Seat in the Body of a Church if a question ariseth it is to be decided by the Ordinary because the Freehold is to the Parson and is common to all the Inhabitants And it is to be presumed That the Ordinary who hath cure of Souls will take order in such cases according to right and conveniency and with this agrees 8 H. 7. 12. And the Chief Justice Damc Wick her Case 9 H. 4. 14. which was The Lady brought a Bill in B. R. against a Parson Quare tunicam unam vocatam A Coat Armor and Pennons with her Husband Sir Hugh Wick his Arms and a Sword in a Chappel where he was buried and the Parson claimed them as Oblations And it was there held That if one were to sit in the Chancel and hath there a place his Carpet Livery and Cushion the Parson cannot claim them as Oblations for that they were hanged there is honour of the decased The same reason of a Coat-Armour c. And the Cbief Justice said The Lady might have a good Action during her life in the case aforesaid because she caused the things to be set up there and after her death the Heir shall have his Action they being in the nature of Heir-Looms which belong to the Heir And with this agrees the Laws of other Nations Bartho Cassanae fo 13. Con. 29. Actio datur si aliquis Arma in aliquo loco posita deleat aut abrasit c. And in 21 Ed. 3. 48. in the Bishop of Carlisle's Case Note That in Easter-Term it was Resolved in the Star-Chamber in the case between Hussey and Katherine Leyton That if a man have a House in any Parish and that he and all those whose Estate he hath have used to have a certain Pew in the Church that if the Ordinary will displace him he shall have a Prohibition but where there is no such prescription the Ordinary will dispose of common and vulgar Seats 39. In the County of Dorset there was a Mother-Church and also a Chappel of Ease within the same Parish they of the Mother-Church did rate and tax them of the Chappel of Ease towards reparations of the Mother-Church for the which upon their refusal to pay the same being sued in the Ecclesiastical Court they prayed a Prohibition and for cause alledged That they themselves have used time out of mind c. to repair the Chappel at their own proper cost without having any Contribution at all from them of the Mother-Church and that they have been exempted from all charges and reparations of the Mother-Church and yet for their refusal to pay this Tax they were libelled against in the Ecclesiastical Court and a Sentence there passed against them they therefore prayed a Prohibition By the opinion of the whole Court a Prohibition lieth not in this case in regard that this Prescription is meerly Spiritual and therefore a Prohibition denied per Curiam 40. One was presented ex Officio in the Ecclesiastical Court for the not frequenting of his Parish-Church he there pleads That this was not his Parish-Church but that he had used to frequent another Parish Church and to resort unto that And because they in the Ecclesiastical Court would not receive his plea the Court was moved for a Prohibition for that by the Law in the
Custome or the Parson by virtue of a Canon shall chuse the Churchwarden and whether Prohibition lies in that case 22. Whether Churchwardens as a Corporation may prescribe to take Lands to them and their Successors to the use of the Church 1. CHurchwardens or Guardiani Ecclesiae are certain Officers Parochial annually elected or chosen by and with the consent of the Minister and a select number of the chief Parishioners according to the Custome of the place to look to the Church and Church-yard and to take care of the concernments thereof and of such things as appertain thereto as also to observe and have an inspection into the Behaviour Lives and Conversation of their Parishioners touching such faults and disorders as are within the cognizance and censure of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction These Officers are a kind of Corporation enabled to sue and be sued for any matters or things belonging to the Church or Poor of their Parish and have as their Assistants certain Side-men or Questmen who according to the custome of the Parish are yearly likewise chosen to assist the Churchwardens in the Enquiry and presenting such offenders to the Ordinary as are within the Ecclesiastical cognizance and censure aforesaid for which they are not to be sued or troubled at the Law by any such Offenders so presented as aforesaid nor are they obliged to Present oftner than twice a year except it be at the Bishop's Visitation yet they may present as oft as they shall think meet if good occasion shall so require but they may not on pain of being proceeded against by their Ordinaries as in cases of wilful Perjury in Courts Ecclesiastical willingly and wittingly omit to present such publick Crimes as they knew to have been committed or could not be ignorant that there was then a publick same thereof Moreover the Old Churchwardens are to make their Presentments before the New be Sworn till which time the Office of the old continues the usual time for the New Churchwardens to enter upon their Office is the first week after Easter or some week following according to the direction of the Ordinary before which the old Churchwardens shall exhibit the Presentments of such enormities as happened in their Parish since their last Presentments and shall not be suffered to transmit or pass over the same to those that are newly chosen By the Ninetieth Canon the choice of Churchwardens Questmen Sidemen or Assistants is to be yearly made in Easter-week and that by the Joynt-consent of the Minister and the Parishioners if it may be otherwise the Minister to chuse one and the Parishioners another who at their years end or within a month next after shall in the presence of the Minister and the Parishioners make a just Account of what they have received and disbursed for the use of the Church and shall deliver over what remains in their hands belonging to the Church unto the next Churchwardens by Bill Indented 2. One brought Action on the Case against Churchwardens for a false and malicious Presentment of him in the Spiritual Court and found for the Defendants They prayed double Costs on the Statute of 1 Jac. But Jones Crook and Berkley Justices denied it for that the Statute doth not extend to Churchwardens for things of their office in Ecclesiastical Causes They have their Action of Trespass at the Common Law for such things taken away out of the Church as belonged to the Parishioners in reference to the Church And the Release of one of the Churchwardens is no Bar in Law to the other If one take away the Chalice or Surplice out of the Church Action of Trespass lieth against him at Common Law and not in the Ecclesiastical Court So if one lay violent hands on an Ecclesiastical person an Action lies in the Ecclesiastical Court but he shall not there sue for dammages If the Organs or Parish-Bible or the like be taken away out of the Church the Action lies at the Common Law and not in the Spiritual Court for the same for the Churchwardens may have their Action at Common Law in that case But if the Parson take away out of the Church the Scutcheon or Banner of some person deceased his Widow if she did put it there and it be taken away in her life time may have her Action of Trespass at Common Law or after her decease the Heir may have the same Action 3. Trespass brought by the Churchwaâ—dens of F. and declared That the Defendant took a Bell out of the said Church and that the Trespass was done 20 Eliz. It was found for the Plaintiffs It was moved in Arrest of Judgment that it appears by the Declaration That the Trespass was done in the time of their Predecessors of which the Successor cannot have Action and Actio personalis moritur cum persona Vid. 19 H. 6. 66. But the old Churchwardens shall have the Action Coke contrary and that the present Church-wardens shall have the Action and that in respect of their Office which the Court granted And by Gawdy Churchwardens are a Corporation by the Common Law Vid. 12 H. 7. 28. by Frowick That the New Churchwardens shall not have an Action upon such a Trespass done to their Predecessors Contrary by Yaxley Vid. by Newton and Paston That the Executors of the Guardian in whose time the Trespass was done shall have Trespass 4. It is the duty of Churchwardens not only to take care of the Concernments of the Church and to present Disorders as aforesaid but also to provide Bread and Wine against the Communion the Bible of the largest Volume the Book of Common Prayer a decent Pulpit a Chest for Alms Materials for repairing the Church and fencing the Church-yard and the like all at the Parish-charge and shall what in them lies prevent the prophanation of Churches by any usage thereof contrary to the Canons It was agreed by the Court in Robert's case That a Tax for the Church cannot be made by the Churchwardens only Hetley's Rep. 5. In Butt's Case Moore Serjeant moved at Court for a Prohibition because where the custome of the Parish or Village was that the Parishioners have used to elect two Churchwardens and at the end of the year to discharge one and elect another in his room and so alternis vicibus c. By the New Canon now the Parson hath the Election of one and the Parish of the other and that he that was elected by the Parishioners was discharged by the Ordinary at his Visitation and for that he prayed a Prohibition Et allocat as a thing usual and of course For otherwise by Hubbard the Parson might have all the Authority of his Church and Parish The like Case to this we have elsewhere reported viz. The Parson and Church-wardens in London by the Custome are a Corporation and the Parishioners time out of mind c. have used at a
but by death or resignation for otherwise Dilapidations should be in the time of the Successor and he cannot maintain Hospitality 8. The wasting of the Woods belonging to a Bishoprick is in the Law understood as a Dilapidation as was formerly hinted Note By Coke Chief Justice a Bishop is only to fell Timber for Building for Fuel and for his other necessary occasions and there is no Bishoprick but the same is on the Foundation of the King the Woods of the Bishoprick are called the Dower of the Church and these are alwaies carefully to be preserved and if he fell and destroy this upon a motion thereof made to us says the Lord Coke we will grant a Prohibition And to this purpose there was a great Cause which concerned the Bishop of Duresm who had divers Cole-Mines and would have cut down his Timber-Trees for the maintenance and upholding of his Works and upon motion in Parliament concerning this for the King Order was there made that the Judges should grant a Prohibition for the King and we will here says he revive this again for there a Prohibition was so granted And so upon the like motion made unto us in the like case we will also for the King grant a Prohibition by the Statute of 35 E. 1. If a Bishop cut down Timber-Tres for any cause unless it be for necessary Reparations as if he sell the same unto a Stranger we will grant a Prohibition And to this purpose I have seen said he a good Record in 25 E. 1. where complaint was made in Parliament of the Bishop of Duresm as before for cutting of Timber-Trees for his Cole-Mines and there agreed that in such a case a Prohibition did lie and upon motion made a Prohibition was then granted and the Reason then given because that this Timber was the Dower of the Church and so it shall be also in the case of a Dean and Chapter in which cases upon this ground we will grant as he said Prohibitions and the whole Court agreed with him herein Also in Sakar's case against whom Judgment being given for Simony yet he being by assent of parties to continue in the Vicarage for a certain time this time being now past and he still continuing in possession and committing of great Waste by pulling down the Glass-windows and pulling up of Planks the Court granted a Prohibition and said That this is the Dower of the Church and we will here prohibit them if they fell and waste the Timber of the Church or if they pull down the houses And Prohibition to prevent Dilapidations and to stay the doing of any Waste was in that case awarded accordingly 9. In a Prohibition the Case was this A Vicar lops and cuts down Trees growing in the Church-yard the Churchwardens hinder him in the carriage of the same away and they being in Trial of this Suit The Churchwardens by their Counsel moved the Court for a Prohibition to the Vicar to stay him from felling any more Coke Chief Justice This is a good cause of Deprivation if he fell down Timber-Trees and Wood this is a Dilapidation and by the Resolution in Parliament a Prohibition by the Law shall be granted if a Bishop fells down Wood and Timber-Trees The whole Court agreed clearly in this to grant here a Prohibition to the Vicar to inhibit him not to make spoil of the Timber this being as it is called in Parliament the Endowment of the Church Coke we will also grant a Prohibition to restrain Bishops from felling the Wood and Timber-Trees of their Churches And so in this principal Case by the Rule of the Court a Prohibition was granted CHAP. XVI Of Patrons de jure Patronatus 1. What Patron properly signifies in the Law the Original thereof and how subject to corruption 2. In what case the Bishop may proceed de jure Patronatus and how the Process thereof is to be executed 3. How the Admittance ought to be in case the same Clerk be presented by two Patrons to the same Benefice 4. In what cases of Avoydance Notice thereof ought to be given to the Patron and what course in that case the Bishop is to take in case he knews not the true Patron 5. Several Appellations in Law importing Patron 6. How many waies a Church may become Litigious 7. Whether an Advowson may be extended 8. In what case the Patron may Present where the King took not his turn upon the first Lapse 9. A Patron may not take any benefit of the Glâ—be during a Vacancy 10. In what case the Patron shall not by bringing the Writ of Qua. Imp. against the Bishop prevent the incurring of the Lapse to the Ordinary 11. The King is Patron Paramount and Patron of all the Bishopricks in England The Charter of King John whereby Bishopricks from being Donative became Elective 1. PATRON by the Canon Law as also in the Feuds wherewith our Common Law doth herein accord doth signifie a person who hath of right in him the free Donation or Gift of a Benefice grounded originally upon the bounty and beneficence of such as Founded Erected or Endowed Churches with a considerable part of their Revenue De Jur. Patronat Decretal Such were called Patroni à patrocinando and properly considering the Primitive state of the Church but now according to the Mode of this degenerating Age as improperly as Mons à movendo for by the Merchandize of their Presentations they now seem as if they were rather the Hucksters than Patrons of the Church But from the beginning it was not so when for the encouragement of Lay-persons to works of so much Piety it was permitted them to present their Clerks where themselves or their Ancestors had expressed their Bounty in that kind whence they worthily acquir'd this Right of Jus Patronatus which the very Canon Law for that reason will not understand as a thing meerly Spiritual but rather as a Temporal annexed to what is Spiritual Quod à Supremis Pontificibus proditum est Laicos habere Jus Praesentandi Clericos Ordinariis hoc singulari favore sustinetur ut allectentur Laici invitentur inducantur ad constructionem Ecclesiarum Nec omni ex parte Jus Patronatus Spirituale censeri debet sed Temporale potius Spirituali annexum Gloss in c. piae mentis 16. q. 7. Coras ad Sacerdot mater par 1. cap. 2. Yet not Temporal in a Merchandable sense unless the Presentor and Presentee will run the hazard of perishing together for prevention whereof provision is made by that Solemn Oath enjoyn'd by the Fortieth Canon of the Ecclesiastical Constitutions whereof there was no need in former Ages less corrupt when instead of selling Presentations they purchased Foundations and instead of erecting Idol-Temples for Covetousness is Idolatry they Founded Built and Endowed Churches for the Worship of the True God Patroni in jure Pontificio dicuntur qui alicujus Ecclesiae extruendae c. Authores
Law which will not be good if the Institution were not good All which was also the Opinion of the Court in the Case aforesaid for if the Question be whether Parson or no Parson which comprehends Induction it is Triable at the Common Law And although by the Institution the Church if Full against all persons save the King yet he is not compleat Parson till Induction for though he be admitted ad Officium by the Institution yet he is not entitled ad Beneficium till Induction 18. In an Ejectione Firmae brought by the Lessee of Rone Incumbent of the Church of D. it was found by Special Verdict that the King was the true Patron and that Wingfield entered a Coveat in vita Incumbentis he then lying in Extremis scil Caveat Episcopus nè quis admittatur c. nisi Convocatus the said Wingfield the Incumbent dies Naunton a Stranger Presents one Morgan who is Admitted and Instituted afterwards the said Wingfield Presents one Glover who is Instituted and Inducted and afterwards the said Rone procures a Presentation from the King who was Instituted and Inducted And then it came in◠question in the Ecclesiastical Court who had the best Right and there Sentence was given That the First Institution was Irrita Vacua Inanis by reason of the Caveat and then the Church being Full of the Second Incumbent the King was put out of possession and so his Presentation void But it was Adjudged and Resolved by all the Court for Rone For 1 it was Resolved That this Caveat was void because it was in the life of the Incumbent According to the Common Law if a Caveat be entered with the Bishop and he grant Institution afterwards yet it is not void After a Caveat entered Institution is not void by the Common Law Pasch 13 Jac. B. R. Hitching vers Glover Rol. Rep. Cro. par 2. 2. The Church upon the Institution of Morgan was Full against all but the King and so Agreed many times in the Books and then the Presentation of Glover was void by reason of the Super-institution and therefore no obstacle in the way to hinder the Presentation of Rone and therefore Rone had good Right And if the Second Institution be void the Sentence cannot make it good for the Ecclesiastical Court ought to take notice of the Common Law which saith That Ecclesia est plena consulta upon the Institution and the person hath thereby Curam animarum And as Doderidge Justice said He hath by it Officium but Beneficium comes by the Induction And although by the Ecclesiastical Law the Institution may be disannull'd by Sentence yet as Lindwood saith Aliter est in Angl. And Doderidge put a Case out of Dr. Student lib. 2. If a man Devise a Sum of Money to be paid to J. S. when he comes to Full age and he after sue for it in the Spiritual Court they ought to take notice of the Time of Full age as it is used by the Common Law viz. 21. and not of the time of Full age as it is in the Civil Law viz. 25. So in this case for when these Two Laws meet together the Common Law ought to be preferred And when the Parson hath Institution the Archdeacon ought to give him Induction Vid. Dyer 293. Bedingfield's Case cited by Haughton to accord with this Case 19. By the Court That if an Archdeacon make a general Mandate for the Induction of a Parson viz. Vnivers personis Vicariis Clericis Literatis infra Archidiaconat meum ubicunque Constitut That if a Minister or a Preacher who is not resident within the Archdeaconry makes the Induction yet it is good And the Opinion of four Doctors of the Civil Law was shewn in the Court accordingly upon a Special Verdict 21. In the Case of Strange against Foote the sole Point upon the Special Verdict was If one Prideoux being Admitted and Instituted to a Prebendary with the Cure 4 Eliz. be being but Nine years of age notwithstanding the Statute it is meerly void Note 4 H. 6. 3. That if a Feme who is an Infant under 14 years hath issue it is a Bastard 21. It is said at the Common Law that after Induction the Admission and Institution ought not to be drawn into question in the Ecclesiastical Court for they say That after Induction the Ecclesiastical Law may not call into question the Institution That by Institution the Church is full against Common persons but not against the King and that by Induction the King may be put out of possession And in the Case between Rowrth and the Bishop of Chester it was Resolved That after an Induction an Institution is not to be examined in the Ecclesiastical Court but by a Quare Impedit only But yet the Justices if they see cause may write to the Bishop to Certifie concerning the Institution 22. Two Patrons pretended Title to Present the one Presented and the Bishop refused his Clerk He sued in the Audience and had an Inhibition to the Bishop and after he there obtained Institution and Induction by the Archbishop Afterwards the Inferior Bishop Instituted and Inducted the Clerk of the other for which Process issued out of the Audience against him he upon that prayed a Prohibition and a Prohibition was awarded as to the Incumbency because the Ecclesiastical Courts have not to meddle with Institution and Induction as was there said for that would determine the Incumbency which is triable at Common Law 23. In a Prohibition prayed to the Ecclesiastical Court the Case appeared to be this viz. Holt was Presented Instituted and Inducted to the Parish-Church of Storinton afterwards Dr. Wickham draws him into the Ecclesiastical Court questioning of him for some matters as touching the validity of his Induction and upon this a Prohibition was by him prayed Williams Justice A Prohibition here in this Case ought to be granted this being directly within the Statute 45 Ed. 3. cap. 3. for here the very Title of the Patronage comes in question with the determination of which they ought not to intermeddle also matter of Induction and the validity thereof is determinable at the Common Law and not in the Ecclesiastical Court and therefore a Prohibition ought to be granted and the whole Court agreed with him herein and therefore by the Rule of the Court a Prohibition in this Case was granted CHAP. XXV Of Avoidance and Next Avoidance as also of Cession 1. What Avoidance is how Twofold 2. The difference in Law between Avoidance and next Avoidance 3. How many waies Avoidanee may happen what Next Avoidance is The word Avoidance falls under a double Acceptation in Law 4. The Next Avoidance may not be granted by a Letter it cannot be granted but by Deed. 5. Grant of a Next Avoidance by the Son Living the Father Tenant in Tail is void 6. How Avoidance may be according to the Canon Law which
it shall be lawful for the King's Chaplains to whom it shall please the King to give any Benefices or Spiritual Promotions to what number soever it be to accept and receive the same without incurring the danger penalty and forfeiture in this Statute comprised upon which the Question was Whether by this last Proviso a Chaplain of the King having a Benefice with Cure above the value of eight pounds per Annum of the Presentation of a Common person might accept another Benefice with Cure over the value of eight pounds also of the Presentation of the King without Dispensationâ— The words of the Statute by which the first Church is made void are That if any Parson having one Benefice with Cure of Souls being of the yearly value of eight pounds or above accept or take any other with Cure of Souls and be Instituted and Inducted into possession of the same that then and immediately after such possession had thereof the first Benefice â—hall be adjudged in the Law to be void Vide Holland's Case 4 Co. 75. â— This Case was not argued but the point only opened by Dodesidge Serjeant of the King for the Plaintiff 17. A. was Parson of M. which was a Benefice with Cure of the value of eight pounds and was Chaplain to the Earl of S. and obtained a Dispensation to accept of another Benefice modo sit within Ten miles of the former which was confirmed under the Great Seal He accepted of another Benefice Seventeen miles distant from the first and was Instituted and Inducted both Benefices being within the Diocess of Lincoln The Archbishop in his Visitation Inhibited the Bishop of Lincoln not to execute any Jurisdiction during his Visitation It was found that the Patron had neglected to present to the first Benefice within the Six months and that the Bishop of Lincoln within the second Six months Collated one to the first Benefice who was Admitted and Inducted The points were Whether 1 Si modo was a Condition in this Licence and made the first Benefice void when he took the Second 2 Whether the Bishop Collating during the time of the Archbishop's Visitation and after his Inhibition was good Resolved That in the principal Case Si modo should not be taken for a Condition and that the Benefice should not be void quoad the Patron as the taking of a second Benefice is by the Statute of 21 H. 8. and then the second point of the Collation by the Bishop in the time of the Visitation and also the Inhibition will not be material 18. Quare Impedit pretending the Church void for Plurality The Defendant said he was Chaplain to the Lord M. and pleaded a Dispensation from the Archbishop of Canterbury and Confirmation thereof In the Letters of Dispensation the words were mentioning the two Benefice to be of small value unimus anneximus incorporamus the second Benefice to the first without the word of Dispensamus thereof The Court held it a sufficient Dispensation for it is not of necessity to have the word Dispensamus and if the Circumstances prove it it is sufficient 19. In the Case between Whetstone and Higford it was held by the Justices That if the Queen retains a Chaplain by word only yet he is such a person as may have a Plurality within the Statute of 21 H. 8. of Pluralities and is a person able to make a Lease And in a Quare Impedit it was Resolved That if there be two Parsons of one Church and each of them hath the entire Cure of the Parish and both the Benefices be of the value of eight pounds and the one dieth and the other be presented it is a Plurality within the Statute of 21 H. 8. 20. The Countess of K. being a Widow retained two Chaplains and after retained a third the third purchased a Dispensation to have two Benefices with Cure and he was advanced accordingly whereof the first was above the value of eight pounds It was adjudged in this Case and afterwards affirmed in a Writ of Error That he was not lawfully qualified within the Statute of 21 H. 8. by which the first Benefice by acceptance of a second was void and that the Title did accrue to the Queen to present for it was Resolved That the Statute gives power to a Countess to retain two Chaplains and no more and when the Statute is executed she cannot retain a third Chaplain and the Retainer of the third cannot divest the capacity of Dispensation which was vested by her Retainer in the two first Chaplains 21. A Parson having a Benefice of the value of eight pounds took a second Benefice without Dispensation being above the value of eight pounds The Court took no consideration of the Statute of 26 H. 8. and the value there mentioned but regarded only the true value of the Benefice 22. For Title to an Avoidance the Statute of 21 H. 8. was pleaded touching the taking of a second Benefice with Cure Issue was upon the Induction by which it seemed to be admitted That Admission and Institution did not make the first Benefice void without Induction 23. Quare Impedit brought the Defendant pleaded the Statute of 21 H. 8. cap. 13. of Pluralities that the last Incumbent had a Benefice with Cure of the value of eight pounds and took another Benefice and was Inducted 1 Eliz. upon which the Queen did present the Defendant by Lapse The Plaintiff shewed the Proviso in the Statute of 25 H. 8. cap. 21. That Chaplains qualified might purchase Dispensations and take two Benefices and that 1 Eliz. before the Parliament he purchased a Dispensation from the Pope and after he took the second Benefice and died The Question was Whether before the Statute of 25 H. 8. the Pope might grant Dispensations It was Resolved he could not for that the King 's of England had been Sovereigns within their Realms of the Spiritualties and the Justices held That the Dispensation in question was made 1 Eliz and so out of the Statute of 25 H. 8. cap. 21. and that this Dispensation to retain a second Benefice was against the Statute of 21 H. 8. cap. 13. 24. The Countess of K. had two Chaplains by Patent a third had no Patent of Chaplainship but he was first Retained and took two Benefices by Dispensation It was Adjudged he was lawful Chaplain for the Patent is not of necessity but only in case where he hath cause to shew it and here he hath no cause to shew it because her Retainer was good without a Patent 25. The Case between Robins Gerrard and Prince was in effect this viz. A man is Admitted Instituted and Inducted into a Benefice with Cure of the value of eight pounds and afterwards the King presents him to the Church of D. which is a Benefice with Cure and he is Admitted and Instituted The Archbishop grants him Letters of Dispensation for Plurality which Letter
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
consent of Five others of the said Commissioners his Companions and namely which Deprived him It was not sound that the Commissioners were the Natural born Subjects of the Queen as the Statute Enacts that they should be And it was moved That the Deprivation was void 1 Because that whereas the Commission is to them or any Three of them of which the said Bishop to be one amongst others it ought to have been the Sentence of them all according to the Authority given to them which is equal and not of one with the assent of the other 2 Because it is not found that the Commissioners are the Natural born Subjects of the Queen as by the words of the Statute they should be 3. Because the punishment which the Statute provides for those of the Ministry which deprave this Book is to lose the profits of all their Spiritual promotions but for a year and to be Imprisoned by the space of Six months and not to be Deprived till the Second offence after that he had been once committed and therefore to deprive him for the First offence was wrongful and contrary to the Statute But the whole Court for the Form of the Deprivation it is that which is used in the Ecclesiastical Courts which alwaies names the chief in Commission that are present at the beginning of the Sentence and for the other they mention them only as here but of their assent and consent to it and in such cases we ought to give credit to their Form and therefore it is not to be compared to an Authority given at Common Law by Commission And it is to be intended that the Commissioners were the Natural born Subjects of the Queen unless the contrary appear But here at the beginning it is found That the Queen Secundum tenorem effectum Actus praedict had granted her Commission to them in causis Ecclesiasticis and therefore it appeareth sufficiently that they were such as the Statute wills them to be And for the Deprivation they all agreed that it was good being done by Authority of the Commission for the Statute is to be understood where they prosecute upon the Statute by way of Indictment and not to restrain the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction being also but in the Affirmative And further by the Act and their Commission they may proceed according to their discretion to punish the Offence proved or confessed before them and so are the words of their Commission warranted by the Clause of the Act. And further the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction is saved in the Act. And all the Bishops and Popish Priests were deprived by virtue of a Commission warranted by this Clause in the Act. Vid. Hill 33 Eliz. Rot. 315. 10. Before many Noble-men Archbishops and Bishops and the Justices and Barons of the Exchequer 1 agreed That the Deprivation of Minsters for Non-conformity to the last Canons was lawful by the High Commissioners For by the Common Law the King hath such a power in Causes Ecclesiastical and it is not a thing de novo given by the First of Eliz. For that is Declaratory only c. and the King may delegate it to Commissioners And the King without a Parliament may make Constitutions for the Government of the Clergy and that such a Deprivation ex officio without Libel is good 2. That the Statute of 5 H. 5. c. 4. is to be intended when they proceed upon Libel and not when ex officio Read the Statute 3. When their Petition is Subscribed by a great number with intimation That if the King denies their Suit that many thousands of his Subjects shall be discontented That this is an Offence Finable at discretion and is near to Treason by raising Sedition by Discontent c. Vid. More 's Rep. Trin. 2 Jac. in the Star-Chamber 11. By the Statute of 13 Eliz. cap. 12. it is Enacted That every person c. to be Admitted to a Benefice with Cure except that within Two months after his Induction he publickly Read the said Articles in the same Church whereof he shall have Cure in the time of Common Prayer there with declaration of his unfeigned assent thereto c. shall be upon every such default ipso facto immediately deprived Then follows afterwards a Proviso relating to this clause viz. Provided alwaies That no Title to conferr or Present by Lapse shall accrue upon any Deprivation ipso facto but after Six months after Notice of such Deprivation given by the Ordinary to the Patron Thus the Patron immediately upon such Deprivation may Present if he please and his Clerk ought to be Admitted and Instituted but if he doth not no Lapse incurrs until after Six months after Notice of the Deprivation given to the Patron by the Ordinary who it seems is to supply the Cure until the Patron Present In the last Case of the Lord Dyer 23 El. it was Resolved That where a man having a Living with Cure under value accepted another under value also having no Qualification or Dispensation and was Admitted Instituted and Inducted into the Second but never Subscribed the Articles before the Ordinary as the Statute of 13 of El. requires Upon Question whether the First Living vacavit per mortem of him or not the Court Resolved That the First Living became vacant by his death and not by accepting the Second because he was never Incumbent of the Second for not Subscribing the Articles before the Ordinary whereby his Admission Institution and Induction into the Second Living became void as if they had never been This differs from the Case of not Reading the Articles within Two months after Induction For the not Subscribing the Articles makes that he never was Incumbent of the Second Living and consequently no cause of losing the First but the not Reading the Articles within Two months after Induction doth cause a deprivation of that whereof he was Incumbent For as an Incumbent that without qualification or dispensation doth take a Second Living doth thereby lose the First so the same Incumbent for not Reading the Articles within Two months after his Induction into the Second may lose the Second and thereby lose both viz. the First by taking a Second without qualification or dispensation and the Second for not Reading the Articles as aforesaid whereof he was Compleat Incumbent by Admission Institution and Induction of the Second Living full Two months before he lost it for not Reading the Articles 12. Parker being Parson of a Church was deprived by the High Commissioners for Drunkenness and moved for a Prohibition but it was not granted and he was directed to have Action for the Tithe and upon that the validity of the Sentence shall be drawn in question If a man be Admitted Instituted and Inducted to a Church and afterwards is deprived for that he was Instituted contrary to the course of the Ecclesiastical Law such Sentence of deprivation is void at the Common Law for that it is
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
whole Court of Kings Bench Mich. 5 Jac. and hath many times been Ruled That if a man sell his Tithes for years by word it is good but if the Parson agree that one shall have his Tithes for seven years by Word it is not good by the opinion of Flemming Chief Justice because iâ— amounts to a Lease and he held strongly That Tithes cannot be Leased for years without a Deed. 82. Upon the Statute of 2 Ed. 6. cap. 13. â—or Setting out of Tithes in a Prohibition to stay proceedings by a Parson in a Suit in the Ecclesiastical Court against one of his Parish for hindering of him in his way in the Carriage of his Tithes The whole Court agreed in this That if a Parson hath his usual way stop'd that so he cannot come to take away his Tithes being set out for him he may well sue for this in the Ecclesiastical Court and there have his remedy But if the Question be whether the Parson be of right to have a way viz. one way or another this is Triable by the Common Law and not in the Ecclesiastical Court but if the Parson have a certain Way granted to him and set out by the Common Law if he be at any time disturbed or hindered by any of his Parishioners or by any other in the use of this his Way he may then in such case well sue in the Ecclesiastical Court for his remedy And the words of the Statute of 2 Ed. 6. cap. 13. are That if any Parson be disturbed stopped or hindered in the carrying away of his Tithes so that the Tithe comes to be lost hurt or impaired in this case he may sue in the Ecclesiastical Court for his Remedy and upon due proof there made thereof he shall recover double value of the Tithe so taken or lost besides his cost and charges of Suit But because in this principal Case the Parson sued in the Ecclesiastical Court for the Right of his Way whether he was to have that Way or not which belonged properly to the Common Law and not Triable there in the Ecclesiastical Court for this cause the Court granted a Prohibition to stay their proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Court A ABby-Lands were five waies priviledged or discharged of Tithes viz. by Composition Bull or Canon Order Prescription and Unity of possession of Parsonage and Land time out of mind together without payment of Tithes It is supposed that no Land which belonged to Abbots Priors c. is at this day discharged of Tithes but such as came to the Crown by the Statute of 31 H. 8. c. 13. All Monasteries under Two hundred pounds per Aâ— were to be dissolved by the Statute of 27 H. 8. But those of 200 l. per Ann. or upwards not till the 31 of H. 8. The Unity aforesaid or perpetual Unity is where the Abbot Prior c. time out of mind have been seized of the Lands out of which the Tithes arise and also of the Rectory of the Parish in which the Lands lie Which Unity as to a discharge of Tithes must have these four properties 1 It must be Justa as to the Title 2 Perpetua or time out of mind 3 Aequalis that is a Fee-simple both of the Lands and Rectory 4 Libera or Free from the payment of all manner of Tithes whatsoever In a Case where an Abbot held a Pâ—rsonage Impropriate which was discharged of Tithes and had purchased Lands so that the Tithes were suspended in the hands of the Abbot and afterwards the Possessions of the Abbot coming to the King by the Statute of 31 H. 8. The Question was Whether the Lands so purchased by the Abbot before his Surrender to the King were discharged of the Tithes It was the Opinion of Mr. Plowden in that case that they were not discharged for that no Lands were discharged but such as were lawfully discharged by right Composition or other lawful thing and in the said Case the Lands were not discharged in Right but suspended only during the time that they were in the Abbots hands Acorns or Mast of Oak shall pay Tithe for they are of Annual increase as in Lifoâ—d's Case These Acorns or Mast are known in the Law by the word Pannagium so Lindwood Pannagium est pastur Porcorum in Nemoribus Sylvis ut puta de glandibus aliis fructâ—bus arbâ—rum Sylvestrium quarum fructus aliter non solent colligi Lindw de Decim c. Sancta Ecclesia verb. Pannagiis And Mr. Skene de verb Sign defines this to be a Duty given to the King for the pasturage of Swine in his Forrests Also Pannagium is taken for the money which is paid for the Pannage it self as appears by the Statute of Charta de Foresta cap. 90. Vnusque liber homo c. Aftermoath or Second Moath Of this Tithes shall be paid de jure unless there be a Special Prescription of Discharge by paying the Tithes out of the first Moath and then it shall be discharged But if a man pay Tithe-Hay no Tithes ought to be paid dâ— jure afterwards for the pasture of the same Land for the same year for he shall not pay Tithes twice in one year for the same thing for that the After-pasture is but the Reliques of Hay whereof he had paid Tithes before Nor shall Tithes be paid for Agistments in such After-grass In Johnson and Awberie's Case it was Resolved that Tithes are not to be paid for the After-pasture of Land nor for Rakings of Corn And where in Awberies Case Suit was in the Ecclesiastical Court for the Tithe of the After-mowings of Grass anâ— upon a Surmize That the Occupiers of the Land had used to make the first Cutting of the Grass into Cocks for Hay and to pay the Tenth Cock thereof in satisfaction of the First and After-mowings a Prohibition was awarded So that After-grass or After-pasture or Aftermoath do not pay Tithes where they have paid before of the Grass of the same ground the same year save where by Covin to defraud the Parson more Grass is left standing than was wont to be or is there usual Nor is the Herbage of Cattel which eat up that Grass Tithable unless there be some Fraud in the case Notwithstanding the Premisses although the Aftermoath be not Tithable where the Owner at his own costs charges and labour made the first Grass into Hay yet Q. whether it may not be otherwise where the Owner doth no more than cut down the Grass of the first Moath Agistment that is a taking into Grass the Cattel of Strangers within the Parish where the Grass grows this is Tithable and regularly by the Owner or Tenants of the Land not of the Cattel unless the Custome makes it Tithable by the Stranger Heretofore there was not any Tithe paid for this Agistment but now the Law is taken to be otherwise And is
Decimandi but the same shall continue when the same is made again into Hay And when it is sowed with Corn the Parson shall have Tithen in kind and when the same is Hay the Vicar shall have the Tithes-Hay if he be endowed of Hay And where a Suit was in the Spiritual Court by a Defendant Vicar of A. for Tithes a Prohibition was prayed upon the Plaintiffs Plea there of a Modus Decimandi to pay so much yearly to the Parson of A. in discharge of his Tithes It was the Opinion of the Court That this Modus between him and the Parson will not discharge him from payment of Tithes to the Vicar and therefore the Court granted a Consultation Also if a Prescription be laid to pay a Modus Decimandi to 100 Acres or to several things if there be a failure of one Acre or of one thing it is a failure of the whole Prescription Monasteries under 200 l. per Ann. commonly called the Lesser Monasteries of the Order of Gistertians and Praemonstratenses that were Dissolved and came to the Crown by the Statute of 27 H. 8. were not discharged of the payment of Tithes by the Statute of 31 H. 8. c. 8. by which Statute those of 200 l. per Ann. and upwards commonly called the Greater Abbies were Dissolved and whereby it is Enacted That the King and his Patentees having any Monasteries c. or any Mannors Lands c. belonging to them should enjoy the same discharged of the payment of Tithes in as ample manner as the said Abbots c. who were discharged of Tithes either by Bulls Compositions Prescription Order or Unity of Possession And albeit the Lands of the said Lesser Monasteries are not within the benefit of the said Statute of 31 H. 8. to be quit of Tithes yet they ought to enjoy all such Priviledges as are annex'd to the Lands for which reason they shall in whose possession soever they are be exempted from the payment of Tithes by real Compositions and Prescriptions de Modo Decimandi though not by Prescriptions de non Decimando Unity of Possession Order or Popish Bulls in all which Cases the Parsons and Vicars have the advantage by the Dissoltion of all those Monasteries and Abbies which were Dissolved by the Statute of 27 H. 8. For these Lesser Monasteries under 200 l. per An. which were as aforesaid Dissolved by the Statute of 27 H. 8. lost their Priviledge of being discharged of the payment of Tithes Nor did the Priviledge extend to any Lands other than such as they had at the time of the Council of Lateran and only for such time as the same remained in their own possessions and only for such Lands as were in their own manurance It is said in Dickenson's Case against Greenhowe That Monks are not of Evangelical Priesthood viz. capable of Tithes in pernancy but meer Lay-men and cannot prescribe in non Decimando And that Bede saith of them That they are meer Laici and the Monks of the Order of Praemonstratenses were such and therefore they could not Prescribe to be Discharged of Tithes Mortuaries in some place called Coarse-Presents though they are not Tithes yet they were given Pro Recompensatione subtractionis Decimarum Personalium nec non Oblationum Lindw c. Statutum infra c. for which reason they are not here omitted out of this Catalogue of Tithes Mortuaries as Sir Edw. Coke conceives were not anciently due otherwise than by Custome only until they were settled by the Statute of 21 H. 8. cap. 6. whereby it is Enacted That no man dying possessed of Goods under the value of 6 l. 13 s. 4 d. should pay any Mortuary nor any to be paid but in such places where they used so to be and that but one Mortuary nor that but in one place and that where the party deceased had his most constant abode and usual dwelling and habitation after the rate following viz. 3 s. 4 d. where the Deceased had in Moveables his Debts first paid to the value of 6 l. 13 s. 4 d. and under 30 l. at his death 6 s. 8 d. if he died possessed of Moveables to the value of 30 l. and under 40 l. 10 s. if to the value of 40 l. or upwards And none to be paid by any married Woman Child Non-Housekeeper Wayfaring-man or Non-Resident in the place where he died Which Statute provides That accustomed Mortuaries should be paid as formerly whether more or less than is before limited There were also it seems certain Mortuaries which the Prelates anciently paid to the Kings of this Realm A Mortuary is not properly and originally said to be due to an Ecclesiastical Incumbent Parson or Vicar from any but those only of his own Parish to whom he ministreth Spiritual Instruction and hath right to the Tithes Lindwood in his Gloss on c. Statutum ver ut infra de Consuetud discovers the ground or reason of that payment to be this viz. That when through ignorance and sometimes through negligence and unjust detention of Tithes and Oblations the Parishioner was found tardy and faulty c. Ideo statuit Archiepiscopus quod Compensatione sic subtractorum secundum melius Animal defuncti Ecclesiae damno debuit applicari But all this notwithstanding we know the prevalency of Custome to be such that in some places of this Kingdom they are paid to the Incumbents of other Parishes that perform no Ministerial duties at all to the deceased party nor living nor dying And the Statute of 21 H. 8. c. 6. doth nothing at all controll the course but makes the Usage of payment only to be the Law thereof In the Case of a Prohibition because the Defendant sued in the Consistory Court of Chester before the Commissary for a Mortuary after the death of every Priest withi nt the Archdeaconry of Chester the best Horse or Mare his Saddle Bridle Spurs his best Gown his best Signet or Ring his best Hat his best upper Garments under his Gown as to the Bishop de debito consuetudine fore supponitur and recites the Statute of 21 H. 8. concerning Mortuaries The Plaintiff averred that there was no such Custome there and that she had paid a Mortuary to the Parson of B. and that after a Prohibition the Defendant had prosecuted his Suit in the Ecclesiastical Court The Questions were 1 Whether there was a Custome in that place to give such things for Mortuary and this to be a just cause to have Prohibition Mortuaries being only Triable in the Ecclesiastical Court. 2 Whether Consultation shall be granted without answering the Prohibition The Court was divided in Opinions wherefore ordered the Defendant should Plead or Demurr and then the Court would give Judgment upon the Return before them N NAg or Riding Nag if a man keep a Nag or Horse within the Parish only for his Saddle to ride on no Tithes shall be paid of
setting forth of Tithes which Action is to be sued in the Temporal Courts Trees of all sorts regularly and generally except Timber-Trees as aforesaid Root and Branch Body Bark and Fruit used or sold by the Owner are Tithable Tithes shall be paid of Hasel Willows Holley Alder and Maple although above twenty years growth Mich. 5. Jac. B. Resolved and Consultation granted accordingly So that Trees of all kinds not apt for Timber though exceeding 20 years growth nor ever cut before may be Tithable And all Trees under the notion of Sylva Caedua aforesaid Underwoods and Coppices felled and preserved to grow again are Tithable to the Parson when the Owner takes his Nine parts But Trees cut only for Mounds Plow-gear Hedging Fencing Fewel for maintenance of the Plough or Pail be it Underwoods of Coppices Parings of Fruit-Trees or the like are not Tithable but Trees bearing Fruit of all sorts are Tithable in their Annual increase And therefore as to Fruit-Trees as Apples Pears c. the Tenth of the Fruit shall be set out and delivered when they are newly gathered for the omission whereof if loss come to the Parson the Owner is chargeable to him in the Treble Dammages If a man pay Tithes for the Fruit of Trees and after cut down the same Trees and make them into Billets and Faggots and sell them he shall not pay Tithes for the Billets or Faggots for that it is not any new Increase Coke Magna Charta 652. 621. If Trees be Fell'd no Tithes shall be paid of the Roots Coke Pasch 29 Eliz. B. R. nor of the young Sprouts that grow of such ancient Stock M. 12 Jac. B. R. Stampe Clinton Roll. Rep. And as Fruit-Trees pay Tithes in their Fruit so also may young Trees which as yet bear no Fruit pay Tithes in another kind for where a Parson Libelled in the Ecclesiastical Court for the Tithes of young Trees planted in a Nursery upon purpose to be rooted up and sold to be planted in other Parishes The Question was Whether Tithes should be paid for them It was said they were of the nature of the Land and Tithes should not be paid of them no more than of the Mines of Coles or Stones digged or for Trees spent in Fewel in the House But it was the Opinion of the whole Court That forasmuch as he made a profit of such young Trees Tithes thereof should be paid when they are digged up and sold into another Parish as well as of Corn and Carret or other things of like nature Note by the Justices If one cut Trees which are or may be Timber although they be under the age of 20 years no Tithes are due and so it is of new Germins growing under that age And where in a Prohibition for that it was Libelled in the Ecclesiastical Court for Tithes of Timber Trees the Defendant said the Trees were long since aridae mortuae putridae It was the Opinion of the Justices That no Tithes should be paid of those Trees for being above the growth of 20 years they were discharged of Tithes Also in Brook and Rogers Case where a Parson sued in the Ecclesiastical Court for the Tithes of the Boughs of Trees above the age of 20 years growth and the Defendant prayed a Prohibition and shewed that the Trees were aridae siccae in culminibus putridae It was held by the better Opinion that Tithes should not be paid of them In an Action upon the Case Declared whereas by the Statute of 45 Ed. 3. cap. 3. Tithes ought not to be paid for Gross Trees That she had cut down such Timber Trees being above the growth of twenty years and that the Defendant as Parson sued her for Tithes of them against the Statute upon which it was Demurred Resolved by the whole Court That the Action did not lie for none shall be punished for Suing in the Ecclesiastical Court for any matter which is properly demandable there although perhaps he hath no cause of Action But if he Sues in the Ecclesiastical Court for matter which appears by his Libel is not Suable there nor the Court hath Jurisdiction thereof there an Action upon the Case lieth Turkeys Tithes shall not be paid of them nor their Eggs quia Ferae naturae Turves used for Fewel or Firing do pay Tithe and are Tithable as Predial Tithes yet held that Tithes shall not be paid thereof Hill 14 Jac. B. R. per Houghton Hill 11 Jac. B. R. per Cur. Tile-Stones or Brick Tile are not Tithable Tythes or Tithes are a Tenth or otherwise a certain part or portion of the Fruit or lawful Increase of the Earth Beasts or Mens Labour and Industry and are payable by every person having things Tithable that cannot shew a Special Exemption either by Composition Custome Prescription Priviledge or some Act of Parliament And they are to be paid without any Diminution for which reason the Owners of things Tithable ought not to have the Nine parts till the Tenth be first severed there-from And on the other side the Tithe is in no case to be taken by the Parson or Vicar before the same be severed from the Nine parts The Parson de mero Jure is to have all the Tithes if there be no Endowment of the Vicarage and a Vicar cannot have Tithes but by Gift Composition or Prescription for that all Tithes de jure do belong to the Parson In Suit for Tithes it is not necessary to demand the very value for the Duty is uncertain Mich. 16 Jac. B. R. Case Pemberton Shelton Roll. Rep. If Tithes be payable by one who dies before he pays it it must be paid by his Executor if he hath Assets But if the Parishioner setteth forth his Tithes and they stand upon the Land two or three daies and afterwards he taketh or carrieth them away this is not a setting forth of his Tithes within the Statute of 2 Ed. 6. But if the Parson or Vicar shall suffer his Tithes being severed to lie long upon the Land to the prejudice of the Owner of the Ground he may have his Action of the Case And whoever taketh away the Tithes not having Right thereto is a Trespasser Also an Action lieth against a Disseisor for the Tithes or if one cut them and another carrieth them away an Action lieth against either of them And although in the Ecclesiastical Courts no Plea is allowed in Discharge of Tithes yet Lands in the hands of Ecclesiastical persons may be Discharged of Tithes and now since the Statute of 31 H. 8. in the hands of the Kings Patentees also by Suspension Priviledge or Unity And since in the Ecclesiastical Courts no Plea as aforesaid is allowed in Discharge it is nothing strange that the Common Law holds that the Court Spiritual hath not Jurisdiction in matters of Tithes where the Prescription is de non Decimando otherwise where it is de
whether sufficient Notice thereof were given or not are examinable only in the Ecclesiastical Court and when the Licence is sufficient and the Provisoes well and duly observed and Notice thereof and This be refused or rejected in the Ecclesiastical Court yet no Prohibition lies but the Party grieved must have his Remedy by way of Appeal and not otherwise 4 That where power is given by Act of Parliament to the Archbishop to grant Licence either de novo or in Confirmation of his Authority yet the form of the Dispensation and the observation of the Provisoes and Conditions thereof and whether sufficient Notice were given or not are examinable in the Ecclesiastical Court and if they there adjudg in that case irregularly no Prohibition lies but the Remedy is only by way of Appeal But if it come into question in the Ecclesiastical Court whether the words of the Act of 25. H. 8. do give sufficient power to the Archbishop to grant a Licence there if the Ecclesiastical Court doth judge against the power a Prohibition lies and not otherwise but if they allow the Licence in point of power and only insist upon the Form and Notice and other Circumstances in such case a Prohibition doth not lie For though a power to grant Licences be by Act of Parliament which is a Temporal thing yet the Licence it self remains an Ecclesiastical thing and the examination of all these things saving the Power remains to the Ecclesiastical Court as it was before CHAP. XXXIIII Of Adultery 1. What Adultery is why so called and in what Court Cognizable 2. The Punishment of Adultery under the Levitical Law and what it was anciently by the Civil Law 3. The several Punishments thereof anciently according to the Quality of the Offenders respectively 4. Adulterers compared to Idolaters strange Punishments of Adultery among the ancient Pagans 5. The Severity of certain Ecclesiastical Laws in ancient times against Adultery 6. The Customs among the Arabians Mahumetans Tartars Indians Pagans in punishing Adulterers 7. The Civil Law touching Jealousie and second Marriage the former Husband then living 8. Adultery what in sensu largo how the punishment thereof is now mitigated at the Civil Law to what it was anciently and how punished at the Canon Law 9. The diversity of punishments inflicted on Adulterers according to the divers Customs of Nations respectively 10. In what respect the Temporal Laws may take some Cognizance of Adultery 11. What the Saxons of old in this Kingdom called the Punishment of Adultery the remarkable Case of Sr. Jo. de Camois 11. Adultery fals under a Threefold Consideration of Law the History of the Adulterous Stork 1. ADULTERY or Adulterium quasi ad alterius thorum where the Rights of lawful Matrimony are violated Lindwood's Const de Offic. Archipresb verb. tertium mandat is the Incontinencie of Married persons or of persons whereof the one at least is under the Conjugal Vow This is properly cognizable within the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction the Conviction whereof is by Examination and other Legal proof requisite by the Law of the Church which if committed by any of the Clergy duely convicted thereof he was punishable by Imprisonment at the discretion of the Bishop or Ordinary of that Diocess wherein he resides 2. By the Levitical Law Adultery was punished with Death in both Sexes yea Stoned to death By the Civil Law also which cals it the Violating of another mans Bed the Punishment anciently was Death both in the Man and in the woman But afterwards the Punishment was mitigated by that Law as to the Woman she being first whipt and then shut up in a Monasterie but by the Canons other Laws are inflicted 3. At the Synod in Ireland held by St. Patrick and other Bishops an 456. by the 19 th Canon thereof the Adulterers were to be excommunicated At the Council held at Berghamstead by Bertwald Archbishop of Canterbury the Bishop of Hereford and others in the fifth year of Withred King of Kent an 697. several Laws were made against Adultery according to the several qualities and conditions of the Persons offending respectively beside Excommunication against all such if the Adulterer were an Alien he was to depart the Land and to take his Sins and his Estate away with him If a Soldier then to be fin'd five pounds If a Rustick or Countrey Husbandman known in the Law by Paganus then to pay fifty shillings If a Priest then to be inhibited from administring the Sacrament of Baptism 4. Boniface Archbishop of Mentz when he was the Popes Legate in Germany an 745. in his Epistle to AEthelbald King of Mercia compares Adulterers to Idolaters and moreover says that the Greeks and Romans Compar'd Adultery to Blasphemy when committed by or with one of religious Orders and adds that among the Pagans in the time of the old Saxons the very pactice was that if a Virgin Adulterously defil'd her Fathers Family or a Married woman plaid the whore they were enforced to be their own Executioners and by their own hands to reduce themselves by Strangling to dead Corps which being after burnt the Adulterer was hangd over the Ashes thereof and at other times the Adulteresses were by those of their own Sex out of their Zeal to Chastity whipt from Village to Village till they were whipt to death In Antiqua Saxonia ubi nulla est Christi cognitio si Virgo in paterna domo maritata sub Conjuge fuerit adulterata manu propria strangulatam cremant supra fossam sepultae corruptorem suspendunt aut cingulo tenus vestibus abscisis flagellant eam castae matronae cultellis pungunt de Villa in Villam inter se occurrunt novae flagellatrices donec interimant By the Laws of William the Conqueror the Adulterer was to be put to death Si Pater deprehenderit Filiam in Adulterio in domo sua seu in domo Generi sui bene licebit ei oure lege forsan occire occidere Adulterium 5. In the Ecclesiastical Laws of Keneth King of Scots an 840. By the 14 th and 15. Canon thereof it is ordained That he who deflowrs a Virgin shall dye for it unless she desires him for her Husband and that he who Adulterates another mans Wife not dissenting Both shall suffer the severest punishment unless she were under a force in which case she shall be acquitted By the Ecclesiastical Laws of Hoel Dak King of Wales an 940. it was a sufficient cause of Divorce if a Woman did but kiss any other man than her Husband l. 18. Yea she must lose her Dower and all her Rights by that Law and only for a kiss and by the same Law Adultery in the Man was held as a kind of Hostility In the time of the latter Saxons by the Ecclesiastical Laws of King Edmund an 944. Adulterers and Murderers had one and the same punishment and both alike denied Christian Burial After him by the Ecclesiastical Laws
reference to the Cognizance of the Temporal and Spiritual Courts in point of Slander 5. Whether Action lies for calling one Quean 6. Prohibition for suing in the Ecclesiastical Court for words tending to the obstruction of a Marriage 7. Matters determinable at Common Law not Cognizable in the Ecclesiastical Courts 8. Whether these words Thou hast taken a false Oath be Actionable and in what Court 9. Whether Action lies at Common Law for saying Thou art a Whore c. 10. Words of Slander to the â—inderance of Marriage are Actionable at the Common Law 11. Defamatory words Thou art a Bawd and keepest a Bawdy house whether and where Actionable 12. To say A. is a Cuckold and that B. had layen with the Wife of A. is a Defamation suable in the Spiritual Court 13. The Difference as to Cognizance between the words Thou art a Bawd and I will prove thee a Bawd and the words Thou keepest a House of Bawdry 14. To say Thou art a Drunkard or a Drunken Fellow whether such words are suable in the Ecclesiastical Court 15. The words he is a Cuckoldly knave are suable not in the Temporal but in the Ecclesiastical Court 16. Whether the calling of Pimp Common Pimp be Actionable and in what Court 17. Welch Jâ—de expounded to be Welch whore and cognizable in the Ecclesiastical Court 18. Whether the words Quean or Base Quean be Actionable in the Ecclesiastical Court 19. Action in that Court for Scandalizing a Parson 20. Whether Action lies in the Ecclesiastical Court for saying of one that kept a Victualling house that she kept a House of Bawdry 21. Whether the words Thou art a Pander be Actionable at the Common Law 22. Church-wardens presentment of a Feme Covert upon a Common Report for Adultery and Action of Defamation brought in the Ecclesiastical Court thereon 23. Whether Action upon the Case for words lies against an Infant of Seventeen years of age 24. Several other Cases at the Common Law pertinent to this Subject of Defamation what of them cognizable in the Ecclesiastical Court and wherein the Prohibition lies or not 1. DEFAMATION properly so called is the utterance of Reproachful Speeches with intent of raising an ill Fame of the Party so reproached Defamare est in mala Fama ponere Bart. l. turpia ff de Legat. 3. This extends it self to Writing as by defamatory Libels as also to Deeds as by Reproachful Postures Signs and Gestures Lindw c. authoritate verb. quacunque in gloss de Sent. Excommunicat And as for the most part it proceeds of malice implying matters either of Crime or Defect so it generally aims at some prejudice or dammage to the Party defamed Whatever Cognizance the Temporal Laws of this Realm do take of Defamations by vertue of Prohibitions and Actions upon the Case yet it will not be denied but that the Cognizance of Defamations where they are duly prosecuted doth properly belong to the Spiritual Law specially where the matter of the Defamation is only Ecclesiastical 2. In all causes of Defamation the Party defamed had his Election by the Civil Law whether he would prosecute the Defamer ad Vindictam publicam or ad privatum interesse the former whereof was made choice of where the Defamed aimed more at the Defamers shame than his own Interest and chose rather to reduce him to a Recantation than augment his Cash by his own Credit 's diminution l. in constitutionib § ult ff L. Cornel. The other viz. ad privatum interesse was chosen by such Defamed ones as valued their Credit at a certain Rate and chose rather a Pecuniary Compensation than an unprofitable Recantation aiming more at their own private satisfaction than at the Defamers publick Disgrace l. stipulationum § plane ff de verbor obligat l. si quis ab alio ff de re judic But both of these the Defamed could not have for having determined his Election he was therewith to rest satisfied only having obtained a Sentence against the Defamer for his Recantation or publick Disgrace by prosecuting him ad publicam vindictam he might possibly have in Lieu thereof a pecuniary Recompence by way of Commutation The Prosecution ad publicam vindictam was left to the determination of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction the other to the Cognizance of the Secular Much in conformity to what the Laws of this Realm in Cases of Defamation seem to say viz. where the Prosecution is meerly for the Punishment of Sin and Money not demanded there the Spiritual Court shall have the Cognizance But where Money is demanded in satisfaction of the Wrong there the Temporal specially if the Defamer undertake to justifie the matter or the words express or imply a Crime belonging to the Cognizance of the Common Law These Actions of Defamation are of a higher Nature than they seem primo intuitu to be a mans good Name being Equilibrious with his Life and therefore the Law calls them Actiones praejudiciales that is such as draw lesser Causes to them but themselves are drawn of none 3. One Libelled against another in the Ecclesiastical Court for saying That he was a Drunkad or a Drunken Fellow and an addle Drunken Fellow and by the opinion of the whole Court a Prohibition was granted and for such words a Prohibition was granted in C. B. in the Case of Martin Calthorp 4. One moved at the Barr for a Prohibition to the Ecclesiastical Court on a Suit there depending for calling one Bawd Jones Justice conceived that these Differences ought to be observed where a Man calls a Woman Whore or such like Slander for which Suit lies in the Ecclesiastical Court against the Party if the matter appear in that Case Suit lies for Slander there and no Prohibition lies è contra if a man be called Thief Traytor or the like whereon no Suit lies for the Principal in the Ecclesiastical Court but at the Common Law if one be sued for such Slander in the Ecclesiastical Court a Prohibition lies If a man call one Bawd for which Suit lies at the Spiritual Court and also at the Common Law there if the Suit be for Slander in the Ecclesiastical Court in that case no Prohibition lies for the Party hath Election to sue in which Court she please So if a Woman be Slandered in her Reputation whereby she is hindered in her Marriage she may sue either at the Common Law or in the Spiritual Court for Slander And lastly if a man speak any words for which no Suit lies at Common Law nor are such as concern any thing whereof the Ecclesiastical Court takes Cognizance it seems that in such Case if Suit be in the Spiritual Court for Slander as for Convitia a Prohibition lies as for calling one Knave Drunkard or the like Quaere of that the Chief Justice agreed to that the others said nothing therein 5. A Suit was commenced in the Ecclesiastical Court where the Lilbel was that he called the Plaintiff
was a common Pimp and notorious which he would justifie After Verdict for the Plaintiff Littleton the King's Sollicitor moved in Arrest of Judgment that these words are not Actionable for it is a meer Spiritual Slander as Whore or Heretick and punishable in the Spiritual Court and not at the Common Law and he said that divers times Suits have been in the Spiritual Court for such words and Prohibitions prayed and never granted vid. 27. H. 8. 14. But to say that he keeps a Bawdy house is presentable in the Leet and punishable at the Common Law Ward è Contra because it is spoken of one of an honourable profession viz. a Souldier and trenches on his reputation to be taxed with such a base Offence and he said that such offences have been divers times punished in London by corporal punishment but it was answered that was by Custom and there the calling one Where is Actionable Jones Justice held that the Action lay not and all the Justices agreed that the exposition and averment that Pimp is known to be a Name for a common Bawd is good Croke and Berkley agreed that the words are very slanderous and more than if he had call'd him Adulterer or Whoremonger c. aud may be indicted and punished for it corporally as tending to the breach of the Peace and rule was given that Judgement should be entred c. But was afterwards stayed 17. Suit being in the Ecclesiastical Court for calling a mans Wife Welch Jade and Welch Rogue Sentence being there in the Arches the Defendant appealed to the Court of Audience and in the Appeal mentioned the former words and in the libel was interlined and a Welch Thief and hereupon a Prohibition was prayed and granted unless cause were shewn by such a day to the contrary For it was held clearly that for the word Welch Thief Action lies at the Common Law and they ought not to sue in the Spiritual Court And for the other words it was conceived upon the first Motion they ought not to sue in the Spiritual Court for they be words only of Heat and no Slander But it was afterwards moved and shewn that the said words A Welch Thief were not in the first Libel nor in the Appeal at the time of the Appeal but were interlined by a false Hand without the privity of the Plaintiff in the Ecclesiastical Court and that upon Examination in that Court it was found to be falsly inserted and ordered to be expunged And that the words Welch Jade were shewn in the Libel to be expounded and so known to be a Welch Whore which being a Spiritual Cause and examinable there it was therefore prayed that no Prohibition should be granted and if it were granted that a Consultation should be awarded And of this Opinion was all the Court that the words and a Welch Thief being unduly interlined and by Authority of the Ecclesiastical Court expunged and in that Court Jade is known and so expounded for a Whore our Law gives Credence to them therein and especially being after two Sentences in the Spiritual Court This Court will not meddle therewith Wherefore Consultation was granted if any Prohibition was issued forth quia improvide And Rule given that if a Prohibition was not passed that none should be granted 18. It was moved for a Prohibition by Harris Serjeant to the Court of Audience because that the Plaintiff was sued there for saying to one Thou art a common Whore and a base Quean and Harris said that a Prohibition had been granted in this Court for saying to one that she was a pimperly Quean And it was the Case of Man against Hucksler And Finch said though the words are not Actionable in our Law yet they are punishable in the Spiritual Court For the word Quean in their Law implies as much as Whore But Hobart said that this word Quean is not a word of any certain Sense and is to all intents and purposes an Individuum Vagum and so incertain 19. In an Action upon the Case that whereas he is Parson of D. and a Preacher the Defendant Slandered him in haec verba Parrett is a lewd Adulterer and hath had two Children by the Wife of I. S. I will cause him to be deprived for it By the Court the Action doth not lie For the Slander is to be punished in the Ecclesiastical Court And so awarded Quod Quer. nil cap. per. bill 20. D. had sued T. in the Ecclesiastical Court for this viz. That whereas she was of good fame and kept a Victualling House in good Order that the said T. had published that D. kept an house of Bawdry T. now brought a Prohibition and by the Court well for D. might have an Action for that at the Common Law especially where she kept a Victualling house as her Trade Note 27. H. 8. 14. And by the Justices that the keeping of a Brothel-house is enquirable at the Leet and so a temporal Offence And so was the opinion of the Court Tr. 7. Car. B. R. Mrs. Holland's Case 21. W. sued L in the Ecclesiastical Court for a Defamation and had Sentence L. appeals and depending the Appeal comes a Pardon which relates to the Offence and pardons it then L. deferrs his Appeal and for that W. had costs taxed him And now L. prayed a Prohibition because he deferr'd his Appeal because of the Pardon which had taken away the Offence And by the Court in that Case after the pardon the inferiour Court cannot tax Costs but it was urged that the superiour Courts might tax Costs upon the desertion of the Appeal which is an Offence after the Pardon But it was answered on the other side that it was in vain to prosecute the Appeal when the Offence it self is pardoned The words were Thou art a Pander to Sr. Hen. Vaughan And there was much debate if they were actionable at Common Law yet it was agreed that a Suit may be brought for them in the Spiritual Court as for calling one Whore Bawd or Drunkard But otherwise by Jones if he had said That he was Drunk for then a Prohibition lies And it was ruled in 6. Jac. B. R. in the Case of Cradock against Thomas a Prohibition was granted in a Suit for calling one Whoreson And in Weeks Case a Prohibition in a Suit for calling one Knave 22. E. and M. being reputed Church-wardens but they never took any Oath as the Office requires present a Feme Covert upon a common report for Adultery c. And the Husband and Wife libel against them in the Ecclesiastical Court for that Defamation And when Sentence was ready to be given for them the Church-wardens appeal to the Arches where the presentment was proved but by one Witness they sentenced the Baron and Feme But now Ward Serjeant moved for a Prohibition but it was denied by the Court for they were Plaintiffs first And also it is a Cause which this
Court had not any Cognizance of 23. Note upon evidence to the Jury Resolved by the Court that an Action upon the Case for words lies against an Infant of Seventeen years of age For malitia supplet aetatem And it is said at the Common Law that if a Man Libel in the Ecclesiastical Court against one for saying certain words of him which he will maintain in an Action upon the Case at Common Law a Prohibition lies 24. If a Man Libels in the Ecclesiastical Court against one for saying that he is a Witch or the Son of a Witch although no Action lies for that at the Common Law yet no Prohibition shall be granted for peradventure he may have some Spiritual prejudice thereby if he should be the Son of a Witch as that he cannot be a Priest or the like for it seems all the force of the words consists in the last words they being spoken in the disjunctive If a Parson of a Church call A. B. Drunkard upon which A. B. answers thou lyest if the Parson sue A. B. in the Ecclesiastical Court for giving him the lye a Prohibition lies for that the Cause for which he gave him the lye is not Spiritual but depending on a Temporal thing precedent But if a Man call a Minister Knave he may be sued for that in the Ecclesiastical Court and no Prohibition lies If one Man says of another that he will not hear Sermons made by those who have been made Ministers by Bishops he may be sued for that in the Ecclesiastical Court and no Prohibition shall be granted If a Man says of another that he keeps a Bawdy house and is sued for it in the Ecclesiastical Court although he might have an Action at Common Law yet the Ecclesiastical Law hath a concurrent Jurisdiction in this and the words are mixt for which reason no Prohibition lies And if one says of another that he is a Pander he may be sued in the Ecclesiastical Court for that the signification of that word is well known and sounds to a Spiritual Defamation Or if a Man says to another Thou art a Cuckoldly Knave and for that he and his Wife sue him in the Ecclesiastical Court for a Defamation no Prohibition lies for that these words amount to a Spiritual Defamation viz. that his Wife was incontinent in this Case a Prohibition was denied Husband and Wife were Divorced for Adultery à mensa thoro mutua cohabitatione and as one of the Counsel said de omnibus Matrimonialibus obsequiis but the Counsel of the other party denied that and after the Wife sued in the Ecclesiastical Court a Stranger for Defamation and Sentence there given for her and penance enjoyn'd to the party Defendant and costs of Suit assessed for the Plaintiff and afterwards the Defendant appeals and after the Husband of the Wife releases all Actions and that Suit and all appertaining thereunto and the Defendant pleaded that Release and they remitted back the Suit to the inferiour Court again and now Coventry Recorder of London prayed a Prohibition for that notwithstanding the Divorce they continued Husband and Wife and therefore the Release of the Husband should barr the Wife from having Execution of the Sentence and of the Costs 44 El. In this Court between Steevens Administrator of one Steevens and Totte the Case was That after a Divorce for Adultery of the Husband à Mensa Thoro the Woman sued in the Ecclesiastical Court for a Legacy devised to her by the Testator and the Defendant pleaded a Release thereof from the Husband and thereupon a Prohibition was granted and he shew'd that president in Court but the President did not comprehend the Divorce But Doderidge said he well remembred when that Case was argued and the parlance then was about the Divorce Wentworth it seems that no Prohibition shall be granted Hill 7. Jac. in this Court A Suit was commenced in the Ecclesiastical Court by two Church-wardens and the Defendant there pleaded the Release of one of them and thereupon a Prohibition was here granted and after a consultation was granted for that they shall try that having cognizance of the Principal and in this Case the Release is after the appeal and therefore it may not be pleaded upon the appeal for the Judges in the appeal have no power but to examine the former Sentence and not any collateral matter Coventrie I agree the Case of the Church-wardens for that the Release of one is not any Barr in Law for 38. Elâ—z it was here resolved between Methon and Winns that a gift by the Church-wardens without the Assent of the Sidemen or Vestry is void but it is otherwise here for here the Release of the Husband is sufficient to discharge the Execution of that Sentence the which is all that we demand 10. lâ— 3. such Divorce is not any Barr of Dower The Court seemed to incline that no Prohibition should be granted for that the Wife in such Case may be sued alone without the Husband by the Ecclesiastical Law and this is matter meerly Spiritual viz. Defamation and therefore we have nothing to do therewith and the Release of the Husband shall not discharge the Suit of the Wife which is only to restore her to her Credit and Reputation which was impeached by the other and the Costs of Suit is not for any Dammage but meerly for the Charge of the Suit and therefore the Suit being not discharged the Costs shall remain also and this Case is not like the fore-cited Case of Stephens for the thing for which that Suit was was originally a Legacy due to Husband and Wife and therefore there the Release of the Husband was a good discharge but here was no duty in the Husband originally Ergo c. Curia advisare vult In Palmer and Thorps Case it was resolved that Defamation in the Ecclesiastical Court ought to have three Incidents 1 That the matter be meerly Spiritual and determinable in the Ecclesiastical Court as for calling one Heretick Schismatick Advowterer Fornicator 2 It ought to concern matter meerly Spiritual only for if it concern any thing determinable at common Law the Ecclesiastical Judge shall not have Cognizance of it See for this 22. E. 4. 20 the Abbot of St. Albons Case 3 Though the thing be meerly Spiritual yet he which is defamed cannot sue there for amends or dammages but the Suit there ought to be for punishment of the offender Pro salute animae For this see Articulis cleri Circumspecte agatis and Fitz. 51 52 53. but yet the Plainshall recover Costs there and there if the Defendant to redeem his Penance agree to pay a certain sum the Party may sue for this there and no Prohibition lies in that Case In a Case of Prohibition between M. and M. in the Ecclesiastical Court the Case was a Suit was there for Defamation by the Wife of the
the Presentees Obligation to make a Resignation within Three months after the Patron so please may amount to Simony within the Statute of 21 Eliz. cap. 16. 19. A corrupt Contract for an Advowson may make the subsequent incumbent Simoniacal 20. To plead a Simoniacal Contract against a Bond it not so appearing is no admissable Plea 21. Masters of Chancery why so called and what they were anciently 22. Prihibition to the High Commissioners that would have put a Parson to his Oath touching Simony 23. In what Cases by reason of Simony the Patron may present after Six months and the Church said to be full as to one not to another 24. The injunction of King Ed. 6. against Simony 25. The form of the Oath of Simony 26. A Simoniacal Contract a good plea in Barr of Tithes 27. A further description in Law of the difference between Simoniacus and Simoniace Promotus 28. The Simoniace Promotus though ignorant of the Simony yet is deprivable in the Ecclesiastical Court 29. A Simoniacal Contract to which neither the Incumbent nor the Patron are privy may yet be Simony within the Statute of 31 Eliz. 30. Simony in it's utmost latitude is properly cognizable in the Ecclesiastical Court 31. Simony worse than Felony A Bond or Obligation good though entred into upon a Simoniacal Contract 32. Whether a Parson outsed for Simony may be after admitted to the same Benefice by the Kings presentation 33. A Person Simoniace promotus and ousted is by the express words of the Statute disabled to accept the same Benefice 34. Where Simony is pleaded in Barr of Tithes the Ecclesiastical Court shall take cognizance and no Prohibition lies 35. Whether the Father may buy the next avoidance and present his Son no Simony to buy an Advowson 36. To procure a Man in consideration of Marriage to be presented to a Benefice is Simony 37. Four observations on the Statute of 31 Eliz. cap. 6. by the Lord Coke 38. The extent of the words Present or Collate in the said Statute also the diversity in Law between a Presentation made by a Rightful Patron and an Usurper 39. What punishment by the Canon Law in case of Simony and the strange conceit of Rebuffus touching the same 40. The reasons why it hath its denomination from Simon Magus how many ways it may be committed according to the Canon Law 1. SIMONY from Simon Magus as Thomas Aquinas and others conceive Tho. Aquin. 20. 2. ae q. 100. art 1. 40. is according to Panormitan's definition thereof studiosa voluntas emendi vel vendendi aliquid Spirituale vel Spirituali annexum opere subsecuto Panor c. Nemo extra c. Or it may be described thus viz. Simony is when any person is presented or collated to any Benefice with Cure of Souls Dignity Prebend or Living Ecclesiastical c. or hath any such given or bestowed on him for or in respect of any Sum of Money reward payment gift profit or benefit directly or indirectly or for or by reason of any promise agreement grant bond covenant or other assurance for any Sum of Money reward payment gift profit or benefit whatsoever directly or indirectly or for or in respect of any such corrupt cause or consideration and every Presentation Collation and gift as also every Admission Investure and Induction thereupon is by the Statute utterly void and whereby the King his Heirs and Successors for that one turn only shall present collate c. And every person so giving or taking any such Sum of Money c. or taking or making any such promise c. doth forfeit and lose the double value of one years profit of every such Benefice Moreover the person so corruptly taking any such Benefice is thereupon and from thenceforth adjudged a person disabled in Law to hold and enjoy the same Benefice The like penalty of the said double value doth he incurr who for any Sum of Money reward c. directly or indirectly other than the Lawful Fees or for or by reason of any promise c. doth admit institute install induct any person to or in any Benefice with Cure c. Likewise if any Incumbent of any such Benefice shall corruptly resign or exchange the same or for or in respect thereof shall corruptly take directly or indirectly any pension sum of money or benefit whatever in such case both the giver and taker corruptly as aforesaid shall forfeit double the value of the sum so given taken or had whereof the one Moiety to the King c. the other to him that shall sue for the same in any Court of Record In which Statute of 31 Eliz. there is a Proviso that the censures Ecclesiastical shall not be restrained by any of the premises therein contained 2. They that Simoniacally buy Ecclesiastical Livings are compared to Simon Magus and they that sell them to Gehazi the Servant of Elisha if a person be possest of an Ecclesiastical Living by such Simony as whereunto he was not privy be is said to be in only Simoniace but if he be in any corrupt and Simoniacal Contract to which himself is a party and was privy and consenting thereunto in that case he is Simonaicus both which are inhibited by the Canons Ecclesiastical or Provincial Constitutions as also are the said corrupt and Simonaical selling as well as buying Ecclesiastical Livings Lindw e. Nulli liceat Ecclesiam c. Quia plerunq and that under penalties greater than the Temporal Laws did then or now will allow of And although by Simony in the vulgar acceptation of the word is commonly understood such corrupt Contract for Ecclesiastical Livings as aforesaid yet it hath a more extensive signification and that is a more proper sense which is by corrupt Ordinations of Ministers or for undue Licences to Preach for prevention whereof it is provided in the Statute aforesaid that if any person shall receive or take any Money Fee Reward or any other profit directly or indirectly or any Promise Agreement Covenant Bond or other assurance thereof Lawful Fees excepted for or to procure the Ordaining or Making of any Minister c. Or giving any Order and License to Preach shall forfeit Forty shillings and the Minister so made Ten pound beside the loss of any Benefice Living or other Ecclesiastical promotion after Induction that any such Minister shall within Seven years next after such corrupt entring into the Ministry accept and take the one half of which Forfeitures do go to the King c. the other to the Informer c. And the Patron in that case may present c. as if the party so inducted were naturally dead 3. The forfeiture of the double value of one years profit of the Church by way of penalty as is beforementioned is not to be computed only according to the valuation in the Kings Books in the First-fruit Office but according to the just and full annual value of the
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
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
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
being made Ministers and do not reform after a months suspension Also by all such persons as refuse the Sacraments at the hands of Unpreaching Ministers after a months obstinacy being first suspended Also by all such Ministers as without their Ordinaries License under his Hand and Seal appoint or keep any Solemn Fasts either publickly or in private Houses having been formerly suspended for the same fault and finally by all Ministers who hold any private Conventicles to Consult on any thing tending to the impeaching or depraving of the Doctrine of the Church of England or of the Book of Common Prayer or of any part of the Government and Discipline now established in the Church of England which by the Seventy third Canon is Excommunication ipso facto 10. Touching persons thus Excommunicated persisting Forty daies in their obstinacy there are Three several Writs at the Law issuing from the Secular power viz. Excommunicato Capiendo Excommunicato Deliberando Excommunicato Recipiendo The Excommunicato Capiendo is a Writ issuing out of Chancery directed to the Sheriff for the apprehending and imprisoning of him who hath obstinately stood Excommunicated Forty daies for the Contempt to the Ecclesiastical Laws of such not in the interim obtaining their Absolution being by the Ordinary certified or signified into Chancery the said Writ thence issues for the apprehending and imprisoning them without Bail or Mainprize until they Conform Which Writ as by the Statute of 5 Eliz c. 23. is to be awarded out of the high Court of Chancery so it is to issue thence only in Term time and Returnable in the Kings Bench the Term next after the Teste thereof and to contain at least Twenty daies between the Teste and the Return thereof And in case the Offender against whom such Writ shall be awarded shall not therein have a sufficient and lawful Addition according to the form of the Statute of 1 H. 5. Or if in the Significavit it be not contained That the Excommunication doth proceed upon some cause of Contempt or some Original matter of Heresie or refusing to have their Children Baptized or to receive the Holy Communion as it is now used in the Church of England or to come to divine Service now commonly used in the said Church or Error in matters of Religion or Doctrine now received and allowed in the said Church Incontinency Usury Simony Perjury in the Ecclesiastical Court or Idolatry That then all pains and Forfeitures limited against such persons Excommunicate by the said Statute of 5 Eliz. 23. by reason of such Writ of Excom Capiend wanting sufficient Addition or of such Significavit wanting all the Causes aforesaid are void in Law 11. The Excommunicato Deliberando is a Writ to the Under-Sheriff for the releasing and delivery of the Excommunicate person out of Prison upon Certificate from the Ordinary into the Chancery of his Submission Satisfaction or conformity to the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction And the Excommunicato Recipiendo is a Writ whereby Excommunicated persons who by reason of their Obstinacy having been committed to Prison and thence unduly delivered before they had given sufficient Caution or Security to obey the Authority of the Church are to be sought for and committed again to Prison This Sentence of Excommunication by the 65 th Canon pronounced against any and not absolved within Three months next after is every Sixth month ensuing as well in the Parish Church as in the Cathedral of the Diocess wherein they remain by the Minister openly in time of Divine Service upon some Sunday to be denounced and declared Excommunicate and where by the 68 th Canon Ministers are enjoyned not to Refuse to Bury it is with an exception to such persons Deceased as were denounced Excommunicated Majori Excommunicatione for some grievous and notorious Crime and of whose repentance no man is able to testifie 12. A Sentence was given in the Chancellors Court at Oxford at the Suit of B. against H. and thereupon H. was Excommunicated and taken in London upon the Writ of Excom Capiendo And it came into the Kings Bench where he pleaded That there was no Addition in the Significavit according to the Statute of 5 Eliz. and thereupon prayed to be discharged And the Opinion of the Court was That by the Statute of 5 Eliz. the Penalties mentioned in the said Statute are discharged but not the Imprisonment nor the Excommunication 13. By the Statute of 9 Ed. 2. 12. the Writ de Excom Capiendo may be awarded to take a Clerk Excommunicate for Contumacy after Forty daies And by the Statute of 9 Ed. 2. 7. the Kings Letters may not be sent to an Ordinary to Absolve an Excommunicate but where the Kings Liberty is prejudiced By the Statute of 5 6 Ed. 6. cap. 4. striking or laying of violent hands upon any person in a Church or Church-yard is Excommunication And by the Statute of 2 Ed. 6. 13. it is Excommunication to disobey the Sentence of an Ecclesiastical Judge in Causes of Tithes By the Statute of 3 Jac. 4. the Sheriff may apprehend a Popish Recusant standing Excommunicate and by the Statute of 3 Jac. 5. a Popish Recusant convicted shall stand as a person Excommunicate And by the Statute of 3 Ed. 1. 15. he that is Excommunicated shall be debarred of Mainprize 14. V. against E. in the Ecclesiastical Court where the Suit was for Striking in the Church which by the Second Branch of the Statute of 5 Ed. 6. cap. 4. is Excommunication ipso facto By which he surmized him incidisse in poenam Excommunicationis And being granted if c. And Ashley shewed cause why it should not issue viz. There ought to be a Declaration in the Ecclesiastical Court of the Excommunication before any may prohibit him the Church Richardson said That the Proceedings are not contrary to the Statute but stood with the Statute And it was said by Yelverton It seems there ought to be a Declaration in the Ecclesiastical Court But the difference is where it is Officium Judicis or Ad instantiam paris they will give Costs which ought not to be Hutton and Richardson If the party will not prosecute it none will take notice of it and they proceed to give Costs then a Prohibition may be granted And if he be a Minister he ought to be suspended for an offence against the Statute And it ought to be first declared and so to Excommunication and that cannot be pleaded if it be not under Seal Dyer 275. And after all these were agreed by the Court and no Prohibition was granted 15. B. was sued in the Ecclesiastical Court in a cause of Defamation in another Diocess than that wherein he lived and being Cited was for Non-appearance Excommunicated and upon Significavit the Writ de Excommunicato Capiendo was awarded Serjeant Finch Recorder prayed a Supersedeas for two Reasons 1. Upon the Statute of 23 H. 8. because he was Sued out of the