for the avoiding of Leases made by a Parson by his Absence from his Living by the space of eighty daies in one year and also shews that one Stallowe who was Parson of Sharrington to whom these Tithes did belong and in whose Right the Defendant claimed them was Absent from his Parsonage by the space of eighty daies in one year and shews in what year and so by this his interest determined and Agreement with the Plaintiff by this made void but they found further as the Plaintiff made it to appear That Stallowe the Parson of Sharrington was not Absent in manner as it was alledged for that they found that he did dwell in another Town adjoyning but that he came constantly to his Parish-Church and there read Divine Service and so went away again They did also find hat he had a Parsonage-house in Sharrington fit for his habitation and whether this were an Absence within the Statute as to avoid his Lease they left that to the Judgment of the Court Yelverton Justice This is a good Non-Residency within the Statute of 21 H. 8. cap. 13. but not an Absence to avoid a Lease made within the Statute of 13 Eliz. cap. 20. It cannot be said here in this Case that he was Absent for he came four daies in every week and in his Parish-Church did read Divine Service Williams Justice upon the Statute of 13 and 14 Eliz the Parson ought not to be Absent from his Church eighty daies together in one year à Rectoria sua but this is not so here for he came to his Church and read Divine Service there every Sunday Wednesday Friday and Saturday and therefore clearly this cannot be such an Absence within the scope and intention of these Statutes as thereby to avoid his Lease Yelverton Justice he ought to be Absent eighty daies together per spatium de Octogin diebus ultra and this to be altogether at one time and so the same ought to have been laid expresly the which is not so done here for that it appears here that he was at his Parsonage-house and did read Prayers every Sunday Wednesday Friday and Saturday and so the whole Court were clear of Opinion that this Absence here as the same appeared to be was not such an Absence by the space of eighty daies in one year to avoid his Lease within the said Statute and so the Defendants Plea in Barr not good and therefore by the Rule of the Court Judgment was entered for the Plaintiff 17. An Information was Exhibited against Two Parsons by J. S. upon the Statute of 21 H. 8. cap. 13. against one of them for Non-Residency and against the other for taking of a Farm the one of them pleaded Sickness and that by the Advice of his Physicians he removed into better Air for Recovery of his health and this is justifiable by the whole Court vid. more for this Coke 6. par fo 21. in Butler and Goodall's Case The other pleaded That he took the Farm for the maintenance of his House and Family And this also is justifiable by the Opinion of the whole Court Crooke moved the Court for the Defendants That the Plaintiff was a Common Informer and that he did prefer this Information against them only for their vexation and so to draw them to compound with him as formerly he hath so done by others for which they prosecuted an Indictment in the Countrey upon the Statute of 18 Eliz. cap. 5. made to punish Common Informers for their Abuses The whole Court did advise them to prosecute this Indictment against him Crooke moved for the Defendants That in regard the Informer is a man of no means that the Court would order him to put in sufficient Sureties to answer Costs if the matter went against him and that then the Defendants would presently answer the Information Williams Justice nullam habemus talem legem this is not to be done but the Rule of the Court was That the Defendants should not answer the Information until the Informer appeared in person 18. In an Action of Covenant the Plaintiff in his Declaration sets forth that the Defendant was Parson of D. and did Covenant That the Plaintiff should have his Tithes of certain Lands for thirteen years and that afterwards he Resigned and another Parson Inducted by which means he was ousted of his Tithes and for this cause the Action brought The Defendant pleads in Barr the Statutes of 13 Eliz. cap. 20. and 14 Eliz. cap. 11. for Non-Residency upon which Plea the Plaintiff demurr'd in Law It was urged for the Plaintiff That the Plea in Barr was not good because it is not averred that the Defendant had been Absent from his Parsonage by the space of Eighty daies in a year for otherwise the Covenant is not void by the Statutes For the Defendant it was alledged That the pleading of the Statute of 13 Eliz. is idle but by the Statute of 14 Eliz. this Covenant is made void for by the Statute all Covenants shall be all one with Leases made by such Parsons And in this case if this had been a Lease this had been clearly void by Surrender of the Parson and so in case of a Covenant Doderidge and Houghton Justices The Statutes of 13 and 14 Eliz. do not meddle with Assurances at the Common Law nor intended to make any Leases void which were void at the Common Law and therefore this Covenant here is not made void by the Statute unless he be Absent Eighty daies from his Parsonage Coke Chief Justice agreed with them herein They all agreed in this Case for the Plaintiff and that by the Preamble of 14 Eliz. it is shewed the intent of the Statute to be to make Covenants void within the Provision of 13 Eliz. by Absence for Eighty daies And Judgment in this Case was given for the Plaintiff CHAP. XXIX Of Abbots and Abbies also of Chauntries and of the Court of Augmentations 1. Abbot what why so called the several kinds thereof and how many anciently in England 2. A famous Abbot anciently in Ireland The manner of their Election prescribed by the Emperour Justinian Anciently the Peers of France were frequently Abbots 3. The ancient Law of King Knute concerning Abbots 4. The Abbot with the Monks making a Covent were a Corporation 5. Abbots were either Elective or Presentative they were Lords of Parliament How many Abbies in England and which the most Ancient Founded by King Ethelbert 6. Chaunter and Chauntries what and whence so called their use and end 47 belonging anciently to St. Pauls in London when and by what Laws their Revenues were vested in the Crown 7. Before King John's time Abbots and Priors were Presentative afterwards Elective 8. Six Differences taken and Resolved in a Case at Law touching Chauntries 9. Certain Cases in Law touching Lands whether under pretence of Chauntries given by the Statute to the King or not 10. What the Court of Augmentations was the end
H. 6. 19. per Prisot y 8 E. 4. 24. b. per Curtam 5 H. 7. 20. b. per Reble and 22 H. 6. 30. per Mark. z Rol. Abr. Ver. presentment lit P. pag. 384. a 21 H. 6. 44. 34. H 6. 40. b 21 H. 6. 44. c 34 H. 6. 11. b. per Prisot 34 H. 6. 38. d 34 H. 6. 11. b. e ibid. per Prisot f 21 H. 6. 44. 45. Rollâ—ubi supra g 34 H. 6. 12. per curiam h F. N. B. Spoliation fo 36. b. vid. Casâ— Edes vers the Bishop of Oxford in Vaugh. Rep. i 38 H. 6. f. 19. Br. Spoliation pl. 4. O. N. B. 33. b. F. N. B. 54. Finch Nomotexnia p. 138. Bird and Smiths Case More 's Rep. Roberts and Amond shams Case More 's Rep. Mich. 13. Jac. B. R. the Kings case against Zakar Bulst par 3. F. N. B. 175. b. Finch ubi sup p. 135. Stamf. 133. Cap. 40. sect 7. in fin sect pag. 564. THE INDEX Referring to PAGE and PARAGRAPH ABBY-Lands how many ways priviledged or dischargâ—◠〈◊〉 Tithes p. 383. How the Abby of Battel came to be dispensâ—â— with from Visitation p. 108. Sect. 8. When and by whom 〈◊〉 Abby of Westminster was founded p. 328. Sect. 5. Abbot whence that word is derived and what it signifies p. 326 327. Sect. 1. How many Abbots anciently in England p. 327. Sect. 1. and 328. Sect. 5. They were reputed as Peers p. 327. Sect. 2. Some were Elective others Presentative p. 328. Sect. 5. When and by whom made Elective p. 331. Sect. 7. Three Abbots condemn'd at once for denying the Kings Supremacy p. 10. Sect. 14. Abeyance what p. 183. Sect. 9. and 189. Sect. 8. and 284. Sect. 3. Abjuration The form thereof anciently p. 141 142. Sect. 8. Absence of the Husband from the Wife what requisite to cause a Divorce p. 494. Sect. 2. Abstinence or Fasting Days the Original thereof in England p. 130. Sect. 44. Acceptance of Rent by a Bishop whether it shall bind him p. 38. Sect. ult By a Parson whether it confirms the Lease made by his Predecessor p. 189. Sect. 8. Accessories determinable in that Court which hath cognizance of 〈◊〉 Principal p. 114. Sect. 11. and p. 123. Sect. 25. Accompt in what case an Executor shall not be compelled thereunâ—â— p. 116. Sect. 12. Acorns Whether Tithable p. 383. Action upon the Case in what Case it may lye at Common Law for suing in the Ecclesiastical Court p. 444. Administrator how he may make his own Goods 〈…〉 Debts p. 86. Sect. 11. Admission what and under what qualification 〈…〉 p. 272. Sect. 6. the form thereof p. 272. Sect. 7. Admittendo Clerico in what Cases that 〈…〉 Adultery where Cogniâ—able and 〈…〉 Advocatio Medietatis Ecclesiae Medietatis Advocationis Ecclesiae the difference in Law between them p. 206. Sect. 2. Advocatione decimarum what that Writ imports p. 647. Sect. 7. Advowe or Avowe who properly such p. 206. Sect. 2. and p. 213. Sect. 14. Advowson what and whence derived p. 205. Sect. 1. Twofold p. 206. The Original thereof p. 207. Sect. 3 A Temporal non Spiritual Inheritance p. 209. Sect. 6 7. How Advowson in Gross differs from Appendant p. 210. Sect. 8. Whether it may be extended p. 182. Sect. 7. By what words in a Grant it may pass or not p. 211. Sect. 10. p. 214 Sect. 15 16. Whether it may be Assets p. 214. Sect. 15. Whether the Advowson of a Vicarage endowed belongs to the Parson or the Parsons Patron p. 216. Sect. 21. Whether the Advowson of a Vicarage doth pass by the Grant of the Vicarage p. 219. Sect. 24. Three Original Writs of Advowsons p. 216. Sect. 20. Aftermath and Aftergrass whether Tithable p. 384. Age at what age a Minor Executor may administer p. 219. Sect. 16. Agistment what and whether Titheable p. 384 385. Agreement between Parson and Parishioner touching Tithes p. 373. Sect. 47. and p. 385 386. Good for years without Deed not so for Life p. 379. Sect. 69. and p. 386. Alcheron how severely it doth punish Adultery p. 471. Sect. 6. Aldermanus anciently what p. 96. Sect. 1. Aliens whether presentable to a Church in England p. 264. Sect. 26. and p. 272. Sect. 6. Alimony what p. 508. Sect. 13. where cognizable p. 510. Sect. 16. 18 19. In what Cases the Law allows Alimony or not p. 509 510. Sect. 14 15. whether due to her that Elopes p. 508. Sect. 13. Alms or things appointed for that end whether Tithable p. 386. Altarage what p. 339. Sect. 1. whether Tithe Wool or Tithe Wood shall pass by the word Altaragium p. 341. Sect. 3. p. 342. Sect. 4 5. St. Andrews in Scotland when and by whom the Bishop thereof was made Metropolitan of all Scotland p. 18. Sect. 9. Animalia Utilia Inutilia the difference between them in reference to Tithes p. 360. Sect. 17. and p. 386. Annates what by and to whom payable p. 335. Sect. 1. The Original thereof p. 337. Sect. 2 3. vid. First-fruits Annua Pensione what that Writ imports p. 648. Sect. 14. Anselme Archbishop of Canterbury the first that made Appeals to Rome p. 97. Sect. 1. and p. 118. Sect. 13. The first Archbishop of Canterbury that was Legatus Natus p. 98. Sect. 1. Apparitor Action against such for false informing p. 88. Sect. 14. vid. Summoner Appeals to Rome prohibited p. 9. Sect. 14. p. 118. Sect. 13. They are made to the King in Chancery p. ibid. Appeal out of Ireland to the Delegates in England in what case p. 407. vid. Delegates Appellatione remota the effect of that clause in Law p. 117. Sect. 13. Apples what Tithes they pay whether small to the Vicar or great to the Parson p. 361. Sect. 21. p. 386. In what case they may not be Tithable p. 371. Sect. 44. Appropriation what p. 223. Sect. 3. The original thereof p. 221 222. Sect. 1. Whether it may be made without the Kings License ibid. and p. 198. Sect. 3. Whose Assents are requisite thereunto p. 222. Sect. 1. How they are now chang'd in their use and end from what they were originally p. 223. Sect. 2. Whether they might formerly be granted to Nunneries p. 223. Sect. 2. and p. 225. Sect. 5. They may not now as to their Original be called into question p. 226. Sect. 6. How a Church Impropriate may become disappropriate p. 229. Sect. 12. Arabians their strange conceit of Adultery p. 471. Sect. 6. The punishment thereof with them Capital ibid. Arable Land left Fallow and untill'd every other year whether Tithable that year p. 394. Archbishop whence so called A description of that Dignity p. 12. Sect. 1. What difference between Archbishop and Metropolitan p. 15. Sect. 3. Three Archbishops in England and Wales anciently p. ibid. Sect. 4. How that in Wales came to be lost and when p. 17. Sect. 6. None in Ireland until the year 1152. p. 20. Sect. 13. In what Cases an Archbishop may call
tradehant The Seventh was at Nice under Constantine and his Mother Irene where 367 Bishops were assembled against the Adversaries of Images whom they subjected to their Anathema 2 Of Particular Synods one was held in the Temple of the Apostles in Constantinople under the Patriarch Photius which was called the First and Second Another under Leo and Constantine in the most Famous Temple Sanctae Dei Sapientiae or Sanctae Sophiae which confirmed the Seventh Synod Another at Ancyra more ancient than the first Universal Synod Another at Caesarea more ancient than that at Ancyra Another at Gangra after the Nicene against Eustachius who despised Marriage and taught things not consonant to Ecclesiastical Tradition Another at Antioch a City in Syria where in truth were two Synods the one under Aurelianus against Paulus Samosatenus who said that Christ was meer Man the other under Constantius Son to Constantine the Great Another at Laodicea scituate in Phrygia Pacatiana Another at Sardica that when Constantius embraced the foresaid Sect his Brother Constans Emperour of Old Rome by his Letters threatning him with a War if he would not desist from perverting the Church his Answer was That he sought no other Doctrine than what was most agreeable to the Catholick Faith whereupon by their and the Bishop of Romes appointment 341 Bishops were Conven'd in a Synod which having established the power and authority of the Nicene Synod did constitute divers Canons for the Church Another at Carthage under Theodosius where 217 Bishops were assembled and with them the Popes Vicegerents this Carthage was part of Charchedon and that a Province of Africa 3 The Canons of the Fathers are taken according to the Roman computation out of the Epistles partly of Dionysius Alexandrinus partly of Petrus Alexandrinus partly of the Wonder-working Gregorius partly also out of the Epistles of Bazil or Basilius the Great partly out of the Epistle of Gregory or Gregorius Nyssenus to the B. of Melita partly out of the Responses of Timotheus Alexandrinus partly out of the Responses of the Constantinopolitan Synod to certain Monks Nicholaus the Patriarch being President partly out of the Epistles of Cyril or Cyrillus and partly out of the Epistles of Nicephorus the Patriach 4 The Canons of the Holy Apostles a book falsly ascribed to the Apostles are in number Eighty Five according to a modest Computation if you have any Faith to spare at least enough to believe the Church of Rome in that as in other Points infallible But the Canons indeed of the Apostles which are of Order and External Government do oblige as Dr. Taylor says the Conscience by being accepted in several Churches not by their first Institution and were fitted only to Times and Places and present Necessities For says he the Apostolical Decree of Abstaining from Blood was observed by more Churches than those of Syria and Cilicia to which the Canon was directed and the Colledge of Widows or Deaconesses derived it self into the manners of the Western Churches And the Apostles in their first Preaching and Conversation in Jerusalem instituted a coenobitick life and had all things in Common with Believers indeed no man was obliged to it Of the same nature were their Canons Counsels and Advices The Canon concerning Widows Let not a Widow be chosen under 60 years and yet Justinian suffered one of 40 years old to be chosen Novel 123. c. 12 13. And the Canon of the Apostles forbidding to eat things strangled is no where observed in the Western Churches of Christendom In the beginning of the Fourth Century above 1300 years since we find our Bishops British Bishops at the Councils of Arles Nice Sardis and Ariminum a clear Evidence of the flourishing state of Christianity so long since in this Island At Arles in France conven'd touching the Donatists appeared for the Britains Eborius Bishop of York Restitutus Bishop of London Adelfius Bishop of the City called the Colony of London which some suppose to be Colchester others Maldon in Essex Sacerdos a Priest both by Name and Office Arminius a Deacon An. 313. At the Synod of Nice in Bithynia An. 325. to suppress Arrianism were British Bishops present as Athanasius and Hilary Bishop of Poictiers affirm At the Council of Sardis in Thracia conven'd by Constanitus and Constans Sons to Constantine the Great the British Bishops were likewise present when the Arrians were condemn'd and Athanasius acquitted And at the Council of Ariminum in Italy the British Bishops were also present who according to Athanasius were about An. 360. summoned to divers Forein Councils in remote parts As also here at home in and after the Seventh Century were divers particular Councils and Synods the first whereof according to Stapleton out of Bede called The first of the English Nation was conven'd at Hertford by Theodorus Archbishop of Canterbury who succeeded Deusdedit in that See in this Council the Observation of Easter was settled according to the Romish Rite yet whosoever will have this Council to be as aforesaid The first of the English Nation must understand it the First whose Canons are compleatly extant Bede lib. 4. c. 5. About the year 740 Ethelbald King of Mercia with Cuthbert Archbishop of Canterbury called a Council at Cliffe in Kent the acts of which Synod were 31 Canons among which is was inter alia Ordain'd That Prayers should publickly be made for Kings and Princes But some few years before this the said Theodorus held a Synod or Council of Bishops at Hatfield by authority whereof he divided the Province of Mercia which Sexwolphus then governed alone into five Bishopricks viz. to Chester Worcester Lichfield Cedema in Lindsey and to Dorchester In the year 692 a great Council was held at Becanceld by Withred King of Kent and Bertuald Archbishop of Britain wherein many things were concluded in favour of the Church About the same time a Council was held at Berghamsteed by the said Withred King of Kent at which Council Bishop Wilfrid was restored to York whence he departed for Rome upon the endeavours which Theodorus Archbishop of Canterbury had used to have that Diocess of York divided In the year 801 Ethelard the Archbishop called a Synod at Clivesho in Kent where by power from the Pope he rivited that 's the word the Archbishoprick into the City of Canterbury There was likewise at Celichyth an eminent Council under Wolphred who succeeded Ethelard Archbishop of Canterbury But nigh one hundred years before this viz. about the year 709 a Synod was assembled at Alncester in Worcestershire to promote the building of evesham-Evesham-Abbey And not long after another Synod was called at London to introduce the Doctrine of Image-Worship into England now first beginning to appear in the publick practice thereof Also above one hundred years before that viz. about the year 601. Augustine by the aid of Ethelbert King of Kent called a Council of Saxon and British Bishops to meet in the Confines of the Mercians and
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
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—
vacancy of a Bishoprick the Dean and Chapter by virtue of his Majesties License under the Great Seal of England hath proceeded to the Election of a new Bishop in pursuance of and according to his Majesties Letters Missive on that behalf and Certificate thereof made unto the Kings Majesty under their Common Seal then follows the Confirmation Consecration and Investiture by the Archbishop or Metropolitan of that Province wherein such Bishoprick was void the said Election having upon such elected Bishops Oath of Fealty to the Kings Majesty been first signified to the Archbishop by the King under his Great Seal whereby the said Archbishop is required to Confirm the said Election and to Consecrate and Invest the person Elected And now he is compleat Bishop as well unto Temporalties as Spiritualties yet after his Confirmation and before his Consecration the King may if he please ex gratia grant him the Temporalties But after his Consecration Investiture and Instalment he is qualified to sue for his Temporalties out of the Kings hands by the Writ de Restitutione Temporalium And yet it seems the Temporalties are not de jure to be delivered to him until the Metropolitan hath certified the time of his Consecration although the Freehold thereof be in him by his very Consecration But if during the Vacation of Archbishopricks or Bishopricks and while their Temporalties are in the Kings hands the Freehold-Tenants of Archbishops or Bishops happen to be attainted of Felony the King by his Prerogative hath the Escheats of such Freeholders-Lands to dispose thereof at his pleasure saving to such Prelates the Service that is thereto due and accustomed Before the Conquest the Principality of Wales was held of the King of England and by the Rebellion and forfeiture of the Prince the Principality came to the King of England whereby the Bishopricks were annexed to the Crown and the King grants them their Temporalties 10 H. 4. 6. 7. The manner of making a Bishop is fully described in Evans and Kiffin's Case against Askwith wherein it was agreed That when a Bishop dies or is Translated the Dean and Chapter certifie the King thereof in Chancery and pray leave of the King to make Election Then the King gives his Congé d'Esâ—ire whereupon they make their Election and first certifie the same to the party Elect and have his consent Then they certifie it to the King in Chanceâ—y also they certifie it to the Archbishop and then the King by his Letters Patents gives his Royal Assent and commands the Archbishop to Confirm and Consecrate him and to do all other things necessary thereunto whereupon the Archbishop examines the Election and the Ability of the party and thereupon confirms the Election and after Consecrates him according to the usage upon a New Creation And upon a Translation all the said Ceremonies are observed saving the Consecration which is not in that case requisite for that he was Consecrated before 8. Bishopricks were Donatives by the King till the time of W. Rufus and so until the time of King John Read for that the History of Eadmerus Vid. Case Evans vers Ascouth in â—in Caâ— Noy 's Rep. It hath been generally held That before the Conquest and after till the time of King John Bishops were Invested by the King per Baculum Annulum but King John by his Charter granted That there should be a Canonical Election with Three Restrictions 1. That leave be first asked of the King 2. His Assent afterwards 3. That he shall have the Temporalties during the Vacation of the Bishoprick whereof mention is made in the Stat. of 25 Ed. 3. de Provisoribus and which is confirmed by the Stat. of 13 R. 2. c. 2. Also the Law in general is positive therein That in the making of all Bishops it shall be by Election and the Kings Assent and by the 25 H. 8. the Statute for Consecration of Bishops makes it more certain And if the Pope after the said Charter did use to make any Translation upon a Postulation without Election and Assent of the King it was but an Usurpation and contrary to the Law and restrained by 16 R. 2. and 9 H. 4. 8. And after the 25 H. 8. it was never used to have a Bishop by Postulation or any Translation of him but by Election as the said Statute prescribes And the form of making a Bishop at this day is after the same manner as aforesaid and according to the said Statute 9. The Interest and Authority which a Bishop Elect hath is That he is Episcopus Nominis non Ordinis neque Jurisdictionis But by his Confirmation he hath Potestatem Jurisdictionis as to Excommunicate and Certifie the same 8 Rep. 89. And then the power of the Guardian of the Spiritualties doth cease But after Election and Confirmation he hath Potestatem Ordinationis for then he may Consecrate confer Orders c. For a Bishop hath Three Powers 1. Ordinis which he hath by Consecration whereby he may take the Resignation of a Church confer Orders consecrate Churches And this doth not appertain to him quatenus Bishop of this or that place but is universal over the whole World So the Archbishop of Spalato when he was here conferr'd Orders 2. Jurisdictionis which is not Universal but limited to a place and confin'd to his See This power he hath upon his Confirmation 3. Administratio rei familiaris as the Government of his Revenue and this also he hath upon his Confirmation The Bishop acts either by his Episcopal Order or by his Episcopal Jurisdiction By the former he Ordains Deacons and Priests Dedicates or Consecrates Churches Chappels and Churchyards administers Confirmation c. By the latter he acts as an Ecclesiastical Judge in matters Spiritual by his Power either Ordinary or Delegated 10. An. 1430. Temp. Reg. H. 6. Hen. Chicheley Archiepisc Cant. in Synodo Constitutum est Ne quis Jurisdictionem Ecclesiasticam exerceret nisi Juris Civilis aut Canonici gradum aliquem ab Oxoniâ—nsi vel Cantabrigiensi Academia accepisset Ant. Brit. fo 284. nu 40. The power of the Bishop and Archbishop is derived from the Crown as was held in Walkers Case against Lamb where it was also held That the Grant of a Commissary or Official to one was good notwithstanding he were a Lay man and not a Doctor of Law but only a Batchelour of Law for the Court then said That the Jurisdiction of the Bishop and Archdeacon is derived from the Crown by usage and prescription and that in it self as it is coercive to punish Crimes or to determine Matrimonial Causes and Probate of Testaments and granting of Administrations being Civil Causes are derived from the Crown and not incident de mero jure to the Bishop which appears by Henslows Case par 9. Cawdry's Case par 5. 1 Ed. 6. c. 2. the Stat. of 37 H. 8. and divers other Authorities and the Statute of 37 H. 8. c.
Fee-simple may pass to them without the word Successors because in Construction of Law such Body Politick is said never to die This must be understood only in reference to their taking of the thing granted in their Politick not Natural Capacity 11. One Bishop may possibly have two Chapters and that by Union or Consolidation as in the Bishop of Waterford's Case who had the Bishoprick of Lismore and the Chapter thereof united to that of Waterford In which Case although the Chapter of Lismore only Confirmed the Grants of Lands belonging to Lismore and the Chapter of Waterford only confirmed the Grants of Lands belonging to the Bishoprick of Waterford yet because the Union there was not extant the Judges held the Confirmation in manner aforesaid to be good but otherwise all the Judges held that both Chapters ought to have Confirmed For it seems if a Bishop hath two Chapters both must Confirm his Leases 12. A Parsonage in the Diocess of W. is annexed to a Prebend in S. the Prebend makes a Lease for years which is Confirmed by the Bishop and Dean and Chapter of S. It was held by the Court to be good without the Confirmation of the Bishop of W. in whose Diocess it is In Eyre's Case it was resolved That Chapters are not of a capacity to take by Purchase or Gift without the Dean who is their Head And in the Case of Eaton-Colledge where a Lease was made by the Dean and Chapter of the Colledge of Eaton whereas they were incorporated by the Name of the Dean and Chapter of the Colledge of St. Maries of Eaton Resolved that the Lease was void for the Misnosiner Yet whereas the Dean and Canons of Windsor were Incorporated by Act of Parliament by the Name of the Dean and Canons of the Kings Free-Chappel of his Castle of Windsor and they made a Lease by the Name of the Dean and Canons of the Kings Majestie 's Free-Chappel of the Castle of Windsor in the County of Berks Resolved the Lease was good For although the King in the Act of Parliament calls it his Castle yet when another speaks of it it is more apt to call it the Castle and therefore such variance shall not avoid the Lease Likewise whereas Christs-Church in Oxon is incorporated by the Name of Dean and Chapter Ecclesiae Cathedralis Christi de Oxon and they made a Lease by the Name of Dean and Chapter Ecclesiae Cathedralis Christi in Academia de Oxon and the Liberties de Academia did extend further than the Liberties of the City yet it was adjudged a good Lease because the substance of the Corporation was inserted in the words of the Lease CHAP. VIII Of Archdeacons 1. What an Archdeacon is his Office and Jurisdiction 2. The several kinds of Archdeaconries and how many in England 3. Whence the Archdeacons power is derived and whether a Quare Impedit doth lie of it or not 4. In what case Action lies against an Archdeacon for refusing to give Induction to a Clerk Instituted by the Bishop 5. Archdeaconry not comprized under the notion of a Benefice with Cure of Souls 6. Process of Quorum Nomina prohibited by the Canon to be issued by any Archdeacon 7. How often an Archdeacon may have his Visitation and what his Office or Power therein is 8. How a person ought to be qualified that may be an Archdeacon It is an Ecclesiastical Dignity 9. Cardinal Otho's Constitution touching the Archdeacons government in his Visitations 10. How Archdeacons are distinguished at the Canon Law 11. Conformity thereto in the practice of the Common Law 12. A Case at Common Law touching a Lease for years of a Glebe made by an Archdeacon 13. The same Case somewhat otherwise reported 14 Whether a Quare Impedit lies of an Archdeaconry 1. ARCHDEACON from archos Princeps or Chief and Diaconos Deacon that is the first or chief of the Deacons Sum. Host de Offic. Archid. c. 1. de Scrut in Ord. fac being according to the Canon Law such as hath obtained a Dignity in a Cathedral Church to have the Priority among the Deacons and first in Jurisdiction next after the Bishop Sum. Host ibid. For as of Common Right all Ecclesiastical matters within the Diocess appertain to the cognizance of the Bishop so under him to the Archdeacon excepting only such things as by Law are specially prohibited And therefore is said to be dignified with this Title for that in many things he doth supply the room of the Bishop to whom he is in precedency to others subservient and unto whom his service chiefly relates Every Bishop be it Archbishop or other hath under him an Archdeacon for the better discharge of his Cure He hath Jurisdiction of Common right which may vary according to Circumstances and the Custome of the place and therefore in some cases it is Jurisdictio Ordinaria in others it is Delegata And although regularly as such he doth not exercise any Jurisdiction within the Church it self yet it cannot be denied but that an Archdeaconry is an Ecclesiastical Dignity Fran. de Aret. in Concil 23. His Office and Jurisdiction by the Canon Law is of a far larger extent than is now practicable with us otherwise we should not there find him so frequently styled Oculus Episcopi for that he is by the very Law the Bishops Vicar in several respects and therefore may where the Bishop himself conveniently cannot keep the Triennial Visitations or not oftner than once a year save where emergent occasions do require it oftner He hath also under the Bishop the power of Examination of Clerks to be Ordained as also of Institution and Induction likewise of Excommunication Injunction of Penance Suspension Correction Dispensations of hearing determining and reconciling of Differences among the Clergy as also of enquiring into inspecting and reforming Abuses and Irregularities of the Clergy with a power over the Sub-deacons and a charge of the Parochial Churches within the Diocess In a word according to the practice of and the latitude given by the Canon Law to supply the Bishops room and as the words of that Law are in omnibus vicem Episcopi gerere Synt. jur l. 15. cap. 20. de Archidiacono 2. The Diocesses within this Realm of England are divided into several Archdeaconries they being more or less in a Diocess according to the extent thereof respectively and in all amounting to the number of Threescore And they divided again into Deanaries which also are subdivided into Parishes Towns and Hamlets Of these Archdeaconries some are by Prescription some by Law and some by Covenant Which difference hath this Operation in Law That the Jurisdiction of an Archdeaconry by Prescription or de jure is exclusive to the Jurisdiction of the Bishop insomuch that a Prohibition lies for such Archdeacon against the Bishop if he intermeddle Juridically with any matters or things within such Archdeaconries
Office supposing the Grant of that by the Predecessor does not bind the Successor as it was in Dr. Barker's Case there a Prohibition shall be awarded because the profits are Temporal But we in the first Case cannot try the Sufficiency Vid. 8 E. 3. 70. 9 E. 3. 11. So it is if the Ordinary deprive the Master of a Lay-Hospital for there he is not a Visitor nor is it Visitable by him But otherwise of a Spiritual Hospital 20. The Bishop of Landaff granted the office of his Chancellorship to Dr. Trevor and one Griffin to be exercised by them either joyntly or severally Dr. Trevor for 350 l. released all his Right in the said Office to Griffin so that G. was the sole Officer and then after died After this the Bishop grants the said Chancellorship to R. being a Practicioner in the Civil Law for his life Dr. Trevor surmising that himself was the sole Officer by Survivorship made Dr. Lloyd his Substitute to execute the said office for him and for that that he was disturbed by R. the said Dr. Trevor being Substitute to the Judge of the Arches granted an Inhibition to inhibite the said R. from executing the said Office The Libel contained That one R. hindered and disturbed Dr. Lloyd so that he could not execute the said Office Against these proceedings in the Arches a Prohibition was prayed and day given to Dr. Trevor to shew cause why it should not be granted They urged that the Office was Spiritual for which reason the discussing of the Right thereof appertaineth to the Ecclesiastical Courts But all the Judges agreed That though the Office was Spiritual as to the Exercising thereof yet as to the Right thereof it was Temporal and shall be tryed at the Common Law for the party hath a Freehold therein Vid. 4 5 P. M Dyer 152. 9. Hunt's Case for the Registers Office in the Admiralty and an Assize brought for that And so the Chief Justice said was Adjudged for the Registers Office to the Bishop of Norwich in B. R. between Skinner and Mingey which ought to be tryed at the Common Law And so Blackleech's Case as Warburton said in this Court for the office of Chancellor to the Bishop of Gloucester which was all one with the principal Case And they said That the office of Chancellor is within the Statute of Ed. 6. for buying of Offices c. And so in the manner of Tithing the Prescription is Temporal for which cause it shall be tryed at Common Law And Prohibition was granted according to the first Rule So that if a Bishop grant the office of Chancellorship to A. and B. and after A. release to B. and after B. die and after the Bishop grant it to R. against whom A. sues in the Ecclesiastical Court supposing his Release to be void a Prohibition will lie for that the office is Temporal as to the Right of it though the office be Exercised about Spiritual matters But if a Chancellor be sued in the Ecclesiastical Court to be deprived for Insufficiency as not having knowledge of the Canon Law no Prohibition lies for that they are there the proper Judges of his ability and not the Judges of the Common Law 21. In Dr. Trevor's Case who was Chancellor of a Bishop in Wales it was Resolved That the Offices of Chancellor and Register c. in Ecclesiastical Courts are within the Statute of 5 Ed. 6. cap. 16. which Act being made for avoiding Corruption of Officers c. and advancement of Worthy persons shall be expounded most beneficially to suppress Corruption And because it allows Ecclesiastical Courts to proceed in Blasphemy Heresie Schism c. Loyalty of Matrimonies Probat of Wills c. And that from these proceedings depends not only the Salvation of Souls but also the Legitimation of Issues c. and other things of great consequence It is more reason that such Officers shall be within the Statute than Officers which concern Temporal matters The Temporal Judge committing the Convict only to the Gaoler but the Spiritual Judge by Excommunication Diabolo And there is a Proviso in the Statute for them And it was Resolved That such Offices were within the Purview of the said Statute CHAP. XI Of Courts Ecclesiastical and their Jurisdiction 1. The Antiquity of the Ecclesiastical Laws of England and what the Chief Ecclesiastical Courts are in general anciently called Halimots The Original of the Popes Vsurpation in England 2. The Court of Convocation and Constitutions of Claringdon 3. The High Court of Arches why so called the highest Consistory the Jurisdiction thereof 4. The Judge of this Court whence called Dean of the Arches 5. The great Antiquity of this Court the Number of Advocates and Proctors thereof Anciently limited their decent Order in Court 6. The Prerogative Court of Canterbury 7. The Court of Audience to whom it belonged where kept and what matters it took cognizance of 8. The Court of Faculties why so called what things properly belong to this Court As Dispensations Licenses c. with the Original thereof in England 9 What the nature of a Dispensation is and who qualified to grant it 10. A Dean made Bishop the King may dispence with him to hold the Deanary with the Bishoprick by way of Commendam 11. Whether a Prohibition lies to the Ecclesiastical Courts in case they do not allow of Proof by one Witness 12. Divers Cases at the Common Law relating to Prohibitions to the Ecclesiastical Courts 13. The Court of Delegates 14. The High Commission Court what the Power thereof was 15. The Court of Review or Ad Revidendum 16. The Court of Peculiars 17. In what Cases the Ecclesiastical Court shall have Jurisdiction of matters Subsequent having Jurisdiction of the Original Suit 18. In what Case the party having allowed of the Jurisdiction comes too late to have a Prohibition 19. The difference between a Suit Ad instantiam partis and that ex Officio Judicis in reference to a General Pardon 20. Whether a Cleâ—k may strike his Servant or another in that case the Clerk and be blameless 21. What manner of Avoidance shall be tried at the Common Law and what in the Ecclesiastical Court 22. In what Case a special Prohibition was awarded in a Suit of Tithes after a Definitive Sentence 23. A Prohibition to the Ecclesiastical Court in a Suit grounded on a Custome against Law 24. Prohibition awarded to the Ecclesiastical Court upon refusal there to give a Copy of the Libel 25. Where the Ecclesiastical Court hath cognizance of the Principal they have also of the Accessory though the Accessory of matters Temporal 26. A Prohibition denied upon a Suggestion That the Ecclesiastical Court would not admit of proof by one Witness 27. In what case the Ecclesiastical Court shall have the Cognizance albeit the bounds of a Village in a Parish come in question 28. How the Practice hath been touching Prohibitions where the Subject matter
in question hath been of a Mixt nature in reference to Jurisdictions 29. Certain Reasons for denial of Prohibitions to the Ecclesiastical Court in some Cases where they might lie 30. Bounds of Parishes in reference to the Tithes thereof whether Tryable by the Law of the Land or by the Law of the Church 31. Where the Question is more touching the Right of Tithes than the Bounds of the Parish the Ecclesiastical Court hath had the cognizance 32. The Ecclesiastical Court hath cognizance of Administrators Accounts and no Prohibition lies 33. Modus Decimandi sued for by a Parson in the Eccllesiastical Court no Prohibition Nor if he there sues for the Tithe of things not Titheable 34. In what cases a Custome as also a Rent may be sued for in the Ecclesiastical Court 35. If Question be touching the Grant of a Registers Office in a Bishop's Court or touching the Tenth after severance from the Nine parts In what Court whether Temporal or Ecclesiastical it shall be tryed 36. A Woman exercising the Profession of a Midwife without License is therefore sued in the Ecclesiastical Court whether a Prohibition lies in that case 37. The Bounds of a Parish also whether such a Church be Parochial or only a Chappel of Ease In what Court this is to be tryed 38. A Prohibition granted upon the disallowance of an Executors Plea of having Assets only to pay Debts in opposition to a Legacy sued for in the Ecclesiastical Court 39. A Prohibition awarded upon a Suit in the Ecclesiastical Court for an account of the Profits of a Benefice Otherwise in case the Profits were taken during the time of a Sequestration 40. A Prohibition granted to a Party to stay proceedings in his own Suit and commenced by himself 41. Pensions are sueable only in the Ecclesiastical Court 42. The right of Tithes coming in question between the Parson and the Vicar is a Suit properly belonging to the Ecclesiastical Court 43. Whether and how far and in what manner the Ecclesiastical Court may take cognizance of a Modus Decimandi at large debated 44. When and how the Canon Law was introduced into this Realm 1. BEfore the time of King William the Conqueror all matters as well Spiritual as Temporal were determined in the Hundred-Courts where was wont to sit one Bishop and one Temporal Judge called Aldermanus the one for matters of Spiritual the other of Temporal cognizance But that was altered by King William and it seems by Parliament for it was by the assent of the Bishops Abbots and all the chief persons of the Realm for he Ordained That the Bishop or Archdeacon should not hold Plea of the Episcopal Laws quae ad Regimen animarum pertinent in the Hundred but by themselves and there administer Justice not according to the Law of the Hundred but according to the Episcopal Laws and Canons as appears by King William's Charter Irrot. 2. R. 2. pro Decano Capitulo Eccles Lincolne Jan. Angl. 76 77. The Principal Courts Ecclesiastical whereof some are now out of use were and are the Convocation Court the High Commission Court the high Court of Arches the Prerogative Court of Canterbury the Court of Delegates the Court of Audience the Court of Peculiars the Court of Faculties besides the Bishops Consistories the Archdeacons Courts and the like anciently called Halimots or holy Courts And the Saxon Kings long before William the Conqueror made several Laws for the Government of the Church Among others St. Edward begins his Laws with this Protestation that it is his Princely charge Vt Populum Domini super omnia Sanctam Ecclesiam regat gubernet And King Edgar in his Oration to his English Clergy Ego saith he Constantini vos Petri gladium habetis jungamus dextras gladium gladio Copulemus ut ejiciantur extra castra Leprosi purgetur Sanctuarium Domini But upon the Conquest made by the Normans the Pope took the opportunity to usurp upon the Liberties of the Crown of England for the Conqueror came in with the Popes Banner and under it won the Battel Whereupon the Pope sent two Legates into England with whom the Conqueror called a Synod deposed Stigand Archbishop of Canterbury because he had not purchased his Pall in the Court of Rome and displaced many Bishops and Abbots to make room for his Normans Among the rest the King having earnestly moved Wolstan Bishop of Worcester being then very aged to give up his Staff was Answered by him That he would give up his Staff only to him of whom he first received the same And so the old Bishop went to St. Edward's Tomb and there offered up his Staff and Ring with these words viz. Of Thee O holy Edward I received my Staff and my Ring and to thee I do now surrender the same again Which proves that before the Norman Conquest the Kings of England invested their Bishops per Annulum Baculum By this admission of the Pope's Legates was the first step or entry made into his usurped Jurisdiction in England yet no Decrees passed or were put in execution touching matters Ecclesiastical without the King 's Royal Assent nor would he submit himself in point of Fealty to the Pope as appears by his Epistle to Gregory the Seventh Vid. Da. Rep. Case of Praemunire fo 89. yet in his next Successors time in the time of William Rufus the Pope by Anselme Archbishop of Canterbury attempted to draw Appeals to Rome but prevailed not Upon this occasion it was that the King told Anselme That none of his Bishops ought to be subject to the Pope but that the Pope himself ought to be subject to the Emperour and that the King of England had the same absolute Liberties in his Dominions as the Emperour had in the Empire Yet in the time of the next King H. 1. the Pope usurped the Patronage and Donation of Bishopricks and all other Benefices Ecclesiastical at which time Anselme told the King That the Patronage and Investure of Bishopricks was not his Right because Pope Urban had lately made a Decree That no Lay-person should give any Ecclesiastical Benefice And after this in a Synod held at London An. 1107. a Decree was made Cui annuit Rex Henricus says Matth. Paris that from thenceforth Nunquam per donationem Baculi Pastoralis vel Annuli quisquam de Episcopatu vel Abbathia per Regem vel quamlibet Laicam manum investiretur in Anglia Hereupon the Pope granted That the Archbishop of Canterbury for the time being should be for ever Legatus Natus And Anselme for the honour of his See obtained That the Archbishop of Canterbury should in all general Councils sit at the Pope's foot tanquam alterius Orbis Papa Yet after Anselme's death this same King gave the Archbishoprick of Canterbury to Rodolph Bishop of London says Matth. Paris Et illum per Annulum Pastoralem Baculum investivit as before he had invested William Gifford in
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
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
exempts the Bishop from the Jurisdiction of his Metropolitan And for that the Cardinal fell into a Praemunire for which he purchased his Pardon which is sound among the Charters 4 H. 6. in Archivis Turr Lond. 6 7 Eliz. Dyer 233. a. Jo. Packhurst being elected to the Bishoprick of Norwich before that he was created Bishop obtained a Faculty or Dispensation from the Archbishop of Canterbury by force of the Statute of Faculties to retain a Parsonage which he had before in Commendam for Three years viz. Ã Festo Michaelis An. Dom. 1560. usque ad idem Festum in An. 1563. Before the first Feast of St. Michael Packhurst is created Bishop and afterwards he resigned the Benefice And the Question was whether that Benefice became void by the resignation of Packhurst or by his promotion to the Bishoprick And it was adjudged That the Church became void by his Resignation Which proves That by virtue of the said Faculty or Dispensation he continued Parson until he had Resign'd Vid. N. Br. 36. h. If a Parson who hath a Faculty or Dispensation to hold his Rectory be created a Bishop and after the Patron present another Incumbent who is Instituted and Inducted now the Bishop shall have a Spoliation against that Incumbent which proves that his real possession in the Parsonage always continued by virtue of the said Faculty or Dispensation And in this Case of a Commendam in Sir Joh. Davis Reports this difference is put between a Faculty to take a Benefice and a Faculty to retain a Benefice viz. That a Faculty granted to one who is not Incumbent to Take a void Benefice is void And a Faculty to one who is Incumbent of a Benefice to Retain the same Benefice is good By virtue of these Faculties Dispensations and Provisions from the Pope Edmond the Monk of Bury who was a Minister in the Court of King Ed. 3. had many Benefices as appears in the foresaid Case of the Bishop of St. Davids 11 H. 4. And Hankford said in the same Case fo 191. a. That by virtue of such Faculty one and the same person had been Abbot of Glastenbury and Bishop also of another Church simul semel and had the Possessions and Dignity of both at the same time Likewise Hen. Chichley who was afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury being a Prebend in the Cathedral Church of Sarum was elected Bishop of St. Davids and before his Consecration the Pope reciting by his Bull that he was elected Bishop of St. Davids granted him a Faculty and power to hold and enjoy all his other Benefices till the Pope should otherwise order c. Vid. Nov. Decis Rot. 331. And that these Faculties or Dispensations to hold Benefices in Commendam were granted in the Court of Rome in the time of King H. 5. appears in Lindw de Praeb c. Audistis ver Dispensatione And although in case of Hen. Beauford aforesaid it was held That the Dispensation came too late it being granted after the Bishop was created Cardinal yet afterwards in the time of King H. 8. Cardinal Wolsey having before he was created Cardinal obtained a Bull from the Pope to retain the Archbishoprick of York as perpetual Administrator and the Abbey of St. Albans in perpetuam Commendam he held both during his life by virtue of the said Faculty or Dispensation Vid. 27 H. 8. 15. b. By these Presidents and Authorities it is evident That before the making of the foresaid Statute of Faculties such Dispensations were had and obtained at the Court of Rome to hold in Commendam Ecclesiastical Benefices in England But the Truth is as in the foresaid Case de Commenda Davis Rep. such Faculties or Dispensations granted by the Pope touching Ecclesiastical Benefices in England were ever contrary to the Law of the Realm for it was a meer usurpation on the Crown of England before the Statutes made against Provisors And these Statutes were made in declaration of the Common Law in that point 12 Ed. 2. Fitz. Qua. Imp. 169. 19 Ed. 2. Eitz Qua non admisit 7. 15 Ed. 3. Fitz. Qua. Imp. 160. 21 Ed. 3. 40. 11 H. 4. 230. a. It is also meet to be known That long before King H. 8. the Statute of 16 R. 2. and divers other Laws against Provisors and Appeals to Rome and the Popes Usurpation upon the Rights of the Crown of England were made well-nigh as severe as any since The first encroachment of the Bishop of Rome upon the Liberties of the Crown of England was made in the time time of King William the Conqueror For before that time the Pope's Writ did not run in England his Bulls of Excommunication and Provision came not thither nor were any Citations or Appeals made from thence to the Court of Rome Eleutherius the Pope within less than two hundred years after Christ writes to Lucius the Brittish King and calls him God's Vicar within his Kingdom Pelagius the Monk of Bangor about An. 400. being cited to Rome refused to appear upon the Pope's Citation affirming That Britain was neither within his Diocess nor his Province And when about the year 600 Augustine the Monk was sent by Gregory the Great into England to Convert the Saxons the Brittish Bishops then in Wales regarded neither his Commission nor his Doctrine as not owing any duty to nor having any dependence on the Court of Rome but still retained their Ceremonies and Traditions which they received from the East-Church upon the first plantation of the Faith in that Island And though Ina the Saxon King gave the Peter-pence to the Pope partly as Alms and partly in recompence of a House erected in Rome for English Pilgrims yet certain it is that Alfred Aethelstane Edgar Edmond Cauutus and Edward the Confessor and other Kings of the Saxon Race gave all the Bishopricks in England per Annulum Baculum 9. In the Case of Evans against Askwith it was agreed That the nature of a Dispensation is for to derogate and make void a Statute Canon or Constitution as to that which it prohibites as to the party and it is as an Exception as to him out of the Statute or Constitution It is said that a Dispensation is Provida Relaxatio mali prohibiti necessitate vel utilitate pensata And in the same Case it was also Resolved by all the Judges That the King hath power to Dispence with Statutes and Canons in force within this Realm By the very Common Law of right it was in the King for the Canons are the Ecclesiastical Laws of the Land and do not bind except they are received in the Realm as appears by the Statute of 25 H. 8. c. 21. And by the Statute of Merton touching one born before Marriage as by the Canon yet at Common Law he is Legitimate And 10 H. 7. 12. it is said That the King may Dispence with one to hold Two Benefices and it seems the Pope
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
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
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
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
surmized they had a Custome to place a Clerk there by the Election of the Vestry the Parson sued them in the Ecclesiastical Court to have his Clerk placed there according to a late Canon made It was the Opinion of the Court that it was a good Custome and that the Canon could not take it away wherefore a Prohibition was granted 16. A Bishop Archdeacon Parson are Spiritual Corporations at the Common Law for the Parson and this is meant also of the others hath two Capacities The one to take to him and his Heirs the other to him and his Successors and in that respect he is seized jure Ecclesiae If J. S. be Parson of D. and Land be granted to J. S. Parson and his Successors and to J. S. Clerk and his Heirs in this case he is Tenant in Common with himself 17. Note That it was agreed in Bushie's Case That if a Parsonage be Impropriate and the Vicarage be endowed and difference be between the Parson and the Vicar concerning the Endowment that shall be tried by the Ordinary for the Persons and the Cause are both Spiritual And there the Vicar sues the Parson for Tithes and suggests the manner of Tithing and prays a Prohibition and it was granted and after upon solemn Argument Consultation was granted insomuch that the manner of Tithing did not come in question but the Endowment of the Vicarage only for that is the elder Brother as the Lord Coke said This was cited to be Adjudged by Coke Also there is much difference between Prebends and Parsons for it was Adjudged in Watkinson and Man's Case That a Lease made by a Prebend is good by the Statute of 32 H. 8. for he is not excepted but only Parsons and Vicars and so it was said it had been Adjudged in Doctor Dale's Case 18. It will not be denied but that the Clergy of England have had in all Ages certain Priviledges which the Laity never pretended to To which purpose there have been Laws Enacted and Cases Ruled by persons learned in the Laws In An. 22 H. 8. cap. 5. it is Enacted That the decayed Bridges in every County where it cannot be known who in right ought to repair the same shall be repaired by the Inhabitants of the said County Town Corporate or Riding where the Bridge is by the Assessment of the Justices of Peace who may appoint Collectors to levy the same by Distress Now the Question is Whether the Parsons and the Vicars may be charged by the general word of the Inhabitants and Distress taken on their Spiritual Livings In order to a Resolution of this Question it must be premised That it is most evident that the Clergy are by the Common Law of this Kingdom a divided Estate both for their Persons and Spiritual promotions from the Laity of this Land 1 For their Persons Fitz. N. B. fo 175. That Clerks shall not be chosen Bayliffs or Beadles for the Lands in their possessions although the Land before it came to the hands of the Clerk was charged therewith by tenure 2 A Clerk arraigned before a Temporal Judge for Felony may plead the Jurisdiction of the Court The Clergy-men by reason of their Resiance are not bound to the Leet nor to follow Hugh and Cry 3 That their Spiritual Livings are also discharged from the general charge of this Realms Laity appears by the Register fo 260. F. N. B. fo 227. That Spiritual persons shall not be charged to pay Toll Pontage or Murage but may discharge themselves by Writ Also the Sheriff who by the Law is the King 's general Officer to serve Processes in every County may not intermeddle with the Clergy in respect of their Spiritual promotions but return Quod Clericus est Beneficiatus in Episcoparu non habet Laicum foedum in baliva mea and then the Process must be to the Bishop as appears 34 H. 6. 21 H. 6. This Priviledge is confirmed to them by Magna Charta and divers Grants and Statutes viz. Articulis Cleri 9 Ed. 2. cap. 9. Likewise no Distress shall be taken in the Ancient Donations of the Church The like Grant is made unto them by King Ed. 1. 24. Protestation 2. That the Sheriff or Minister of the King shall not meddle with the Goods Chattels or Carriages of the Clergy and in Purveyors 12. An. 14 Ed. 3. there is a Statute that Purveyors shall not meddle with the Clergy c. Ed. 1. cap. 1. 1 R. 2. cap. 2. 1 H. 4. cap. 3. Statute Spiritualties 2. Priviledges Grants Immunities of the Clergy are confirmed So that it appears both by the Common Law and the Statutes that the Clergy are not to be burthened in the general charges with the Laity of this Realm neither to be troubled or incumbred unless they be especially named and expresly charged by some Statute And divers Statutes heretofore expressing themselves with the like general words have never been expounded to extend to the Clergy as by the usage of them appears by the Statute of Winton An. 13 Eliz. 1. Again the people dwelling in a Hundred where any Robbery is committed shall either bring forth the Felon or agree with him that is robbed yet hath it never been taken that Parsons and Vicars should be Contributors thereunto yet the words Gentes demorantes viz. the People dwelling are as general words as Inhabitants In the same Statute there are the like general words Watching c. yet the Clergy thereby are never charged Also the Statute made for the High-ways An. 2 3. P. M. chargeth every Housholder yet this general Housholder hath never been taken by usage to charge the Clergy viz. the Parson or Vicar Fitz. in his Nat. Bre. fol. 131. saith that a Clerk being bound in a Statute-Merchant shall not be taken by his Body And the Writ founded upon the Statute-Staple 27 Ed. 3. cap. 9. hath this special Proviso Si Laicus Sit capias Also the Statute whereupon this Writ is founded is general and no Exception made at the Clergy And 33 H. 8. cap. 2. there is a Statute that chargeth all Resiants within any Countyâ— where there is no Goal to be Taxed by the Justices for the Building of one yet have the Clergy never been charged by reason of these general words Resiants c. 1 Ed. 1. 18 Ed. 3. 4. 1 R. 2. 1. For these Reasons it is supposed that the general words in the aforesaid Question will receive in Law the like Exposition as the other said recited Statutes have done And the Parsons and Vicars shall not thereby be charged the rather for that the Statute sets down the Inhabitants of the County where the certain persons that should do it cannot be known which is to be intended such Inhabitants as are chargeable to Pontage which Spiritual persons are not but excepted as aforesaid CHAP. XVIII Of Vicars Vicarages and Benefices 1. The Vicar and Vicarage described according to Law 2. What
such a malign influence upon succeeding Princes in After-ages and other Kingdoms and also upon the Popes as some Historiographers do more than conjecture is not so evident as that which is reported by Ingulphus Abbot of Crowland touching Eight Churches to have been Appropriated to that Abbey by several Saxon Kings and though by their Charters yet whether by such exclusively to all Ecclesiastical Authority is not so certain as that William the Conqueror without asking leave of the Pope Appropriated three Parish-Churches to the Abbey of Battaile which he built in memory of his Conquest and his youngest Son H. 1. nigh twenty in one day to the Cathedral of Sarum by his Letters Patents together with the Tithes of those Parishes which his elder Brother William Sirnamed Rufus had depopulated and disecclesiated in New-Forrest in Hantshire Notwithstanding which the Pope who understood his Supremacy in matters Ecclesiastical better than to part with it upon any Presidents of Temporal Usurpations doth frequently in his Decretals without any contradiction rather assume than arrogate this Right unto himself as a Prerogative of the Apostolick See and granted to several Religious Orders this Priviledge of taking Ecclesiastical Benefices at Lay-mens hands by the mediation of the Diocesan who at a moderate and indifferent rate as one Moity of the Annual profits of the Benefice was to be a Medium or Expedient between the Religious House and the Incumbent but in process of time partly by the remisness of the Bishops in that point and partly by the Covetousness of the Monks and Friers in those days the Incumbents proportion became at last so inconsiderable that Pope Vrban the Fifth by his Legate Othobon about the year 1260 was forced to inhibit all the Bishops here in England from Appropriating any more Churches to any Monastery or othes Religious Houses save only in such cases where Charity might prevail in derogation of Law and under this Proviso also That the Bishops should assign a competent proprotion of the Parochial Fruits for the Maintenance of the Incumbent according to the annual value thereof in case the new Appropriators did it not within Six months next after such Appropriation but this Constitution not taking the effect expected a convenient Maintenance for the Vicar was otherwise provided for by Two Statutes the one made by R. 2. the other by his Successor H. 4. So that upon the whole it may be rationally inferr'd that these Appropriations originally came partly by the Act of Ecclesiasticks and partly by the Laity But what way soever they came this is and hath been held for Law within this Realm That albeit the Pope takes upon him to be Supream Ordinary yet no Appropriations made by him or by any Authority derived from him were ever allowed or approved of by the Laws of this Realm it being held That no Appropriations within this Realm can be made but by the King or by Authority derived from him and by his License and that all other Appropriations are void in Law An Appropriation may be by the King Sole where he is Patron but it may not be by the Patron Sole Grendon's Case in Plowden 17 E. 3. 39. An Appropriation cannot be without the King's License Ward 's Case Poph. Rep. Nor will the Objection hold against the King to say No man can make an Appropriation of any Church having Cure of Souls the same being a thing meerly Ecclesiastical and to be made by some Ecclesiastical person but he only who hath Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction for such Jurisdiction the King hath and is such a Spiritual person as may of himself Appropriate any Church or Advowson because in him resides the Ecclesiastical Power and Jurisdiction And therefore in a Case of Commendams it was long since held That an Appropriation made by the Pope could not be good without the King's License The like in a Case of Avoidance was vouched in Cawdrie's Case That the Entry into a Church by the Authority of the Pope only was not good and that he could not Appropriate a Church to Appropriatees to hold to their own use And in Gyendon's Case it was Resolved by the Justices That the Ordinary Patron and King ought to be assenting to every Appropriation and that the Authority which the Pope had usurped in this Realm was by Parliament 25 H. 8. acknowledged to be in the King who as Supream Ordinary may Appropriate without the Bishop's Assent 2. It seems therefore without any contradiction most evident That Appropriation or Impropriation at the Original thereof was when the Religious Houses of the Romish Church and the Religious persons as Abbots Priors and the like had the Advowson of any Parsonage to them and their Successors obtaining License of their Holy Father the Pope as also of Kings and of their Ordinaries that they and their Successors should from thenceforth be the Parsons thereof that it should thenceforth be a Vicarage and that a Vicar should serve the Cure So that at the beginning of this Spiritual Monopoly of Appropriations they were made only to such Spiritual persons as were qualified to Administer the Sacramental Ordinances and perform Divine Service Afterwards the Grant thereof was gradually enlarged and extended to Deans and Chapters though Bodies Politick and as such not capable of performing such Divine Services yea and which was most Ridiculous as well as Impious to Nunus which were Prioresses to some Nunnerics but not Female-Preachers as in these daies All which was under a Pretence of maintaining Hospitality and to supply all defects hereby occasioned there must be the Invention of a Vicar as the Appropriators Deputy to serve them and the Cure for which he had and hath the Tithe of Mint and Cummin and such other small ossals of Tithes as might be spared out of the weightier Granaries thereof without breach of the Laws of Hospitality thereby Sacrilegiously robbing the Church to enrich themselves Thus the poor Vicar shall have something like a certain portion of the Benefice whilst the Abbot and the Covent and their Lay-Successors shall be the Parsons and receive the main Profits and so live by the Altar without waiting on it and be Re-baptized by the Law with the name of Parsons Imparsonces This was that Anciently which we now call Appropriation which cannot be made to begin in the Parson's Life-time without his Assent and is so called because they hold the Profits ad proprium suum usum but if such Advowsons happen to be recovered by Ancient Title then and in such case the Appropriation of the Parsonage is annulled 3. So that from the Premisses it is evident That this Appropriation or Impropriation is an Annexation of an Ecclesiastical Benefice which originally was as it were in nullius Patrimonio to the proper and peculiar use and benefit of some Religious House Bishoprick Dean and Chapter Colledge c. Quod Divini juris est id nullius est in bonis Instit de
placuit 10. q. 3. Rebuff de Commenda who yet by the same Law possit expensas facere ex reditibus Beneficii Commendati sumere ex eo alimenta debita persolvere sicut is qui titulum habet c. 1. de Solutio hoc afferit Archidiac in cap. qui plures 21. q. 1. 7. The grand Case of a Commendam was that of Evans and Kiffin against Ascuth which being two daies argued by the Judges and by Noy Attorney is acutely and succinctly Reported thus viz. In Trespass Dr. Thornbury being Dean of York was chosen Bishop of Limbrick in Ireland But before Consecration or Confirmation he obtained a Patent with large words Non obstante retinere valeat in Commendam the said Deanary c. And afterwards he was chosen Bishop of Bristol and then also before Installation he obtained another Patent with a more ample Dispensation of retaining the Deanary in Commendam It was Agreed by all That the Church or Deanary c. in England shall be void by Cession if the Parson or Dean c. be made a Bishop in Ireland For the Canon Law in that is one through all the World Also Ireland is governed by the Laws of England and is now as part of England by Subordinacy Note well 45 E. 3. 19. b. Confirmation under the Great Seal of England is good in this Case Confirmation under the Great Seal of England of Presentation to a Church in Ireland of the Heir of the Tenant of the King and that a Dispensation under the Great Seal of England is good in this Case without any Patent of it in Ireland vid. 8 Ass 27. 10 E. 3. 42. An Exchange of Land in England for Land in Ireland is good Note 20 H. 6. 8 Scir fac sued in England to Repeal a Patent under the Great Seal of Ireland vid. the Irish Statute 2 Eliz. cap. 4. That an Irish Bishop may be made under the Great Seal of England Note Stat. 1 E. 6. the Irish Bishops shall be Donative by Patent of the King under the Great Seal of England yet the King may let them be chosen per Congé d'Eslire c. 1 Noy Attorney Argued at Bar and so stated the Points of the said Case by themselves If a Commendatary Dean by a Retinere in Commendam may well Confirm a Lease made by the Bishop for it is Agreed That a Commendatary Dean by Recipere in Commend cannot Confirm because he is but a Depositarius Note 19 H. 6. 16. 12 H. 4. 20. 27 H. 8. 15. a Commendatary shall be sued by that Name and by such a Commend he may take the profits and use Jurisdiction and yet is not a Dean compleat Note he may make a Deputy for Visitation but not for Confirmation of Leases Note if there be two Deans in one Church both ought to Confirm Vid. Dy. 282. Co. Inst 30. a. 2 The Second point if such a Bishop be chosen to another Bishoprick if now the first Church in Commend admitting that there was a Full Incumbent be void presently by the Election and assent of the Superiour viz. the King And it seemed to him that it was because there need not be a new Consecration and he vouch'd Panormitan 2. par 101. The Bishop of Spires was chosen Bishop of Trevers and had the assent of the Pope and that he came to Trevers and there found another in possession and he would have returned to the former Bishoprick and could not He also Cited 8 Rep. Trollop's Case That the Guardianship of the Temporalties cease by the Election of a new Bishop Note that Serjeant Henden who argued on the contrary vouch'd Mich. 4 Jac. May Bishop of Carlisle made a Lease to the Queen and a Commission issued out of the Exchequer to take it and the Dean and Chapter Confirmed it before the Inrolment of it and yet Adjudged good That Case was for the Castle of Horne First the Judges having Argued two daies Resolved 1 That all Commendams are Dispensations and that Cession commenced by the Canon and Council of Lateran 2 That the King may dispense with that Canon 11 H. 7. 12. For the Pope might and now by the Statute 21 H. 8. that power is given to the King cumulative by way of Exposition veteris and not by Introduction novi Juris and by that Statute a concurrent power is given to the Archbishop of Canterbury and may be granted to the King or by the Archbishop c. 3 That the Dispensation after Election to the first Bishoprick and before Consecration c. and also the Dispensation after Election to the second Bishoprick and before Confirmation is good enough in both Cases and he remains a good Dean to Confirm c. and afterwards the Judgment in the Case being an Action of Trespass was given accordingly 8. A Commendam is to be granted Necessitate evidenti vel utilitate Ecclesiae suadente and in the Infancy of the Church quando defuerunt Pastores they were necessary A Commendam ordinarily is but for six months and he that hath it is Custos only the other is extraordinary and that is for life and he is an Incumbent The King by his Prerogative Royal may grant a Commendam without any Statute yet if such Commendam shall be good it may be very mischievous to the Patron It is it seems agreed in the Books of the Common Law that the use of Commendams in their first Institution was lawful but not the abuse thereof and that a perpetual Commendam viz. for life was held unlawful and condemned by a Council of 700 Bishops It is likewise Reported to us That where the Incumbent of a Church was created a Bishop and the Queen granted him to hold the Benefice which he had in Commendam It was the Opinion of the Justices That the Queen had the Prerogative by the Common Law and that it is not taken away by the Stat. of 35 H. 8. 9. In a Quare Impedit brought by the King against Cyprian Horsefall and Robert Wale on a Special plea pleaded by Wale the Incumbent the Kings Attorney demurred in Law The Case in substance was this viz. the Corporation of Kilkenny being Patrons of a Vicarage within the Diocess of Ossery Presented one Patrick Fynne thereunto who was Admitted Instituted and Inducted After that during the Incumbency of the said Fynne Adam Loftus Archbishop of Dublin and Ambrose Forth Doctor of the Civil Law being Commissioners Delegates for granting of Faculties and Dispensations in the Realm of Ireland according to the Statute of 28 H. 8. cap. 16. by their Letters Dated 9 Octob. 33 Eliz. granted to John Horsefall then Bishop of Ossery That the said Bishop unum vel plura Beneficia curata vel non curata sui vel alieni Jurispatronatus non excedentia annuum valorem quadraginta Librarum adtunc vacantia vel quae per imposterum vacare contigerint perpetuae Commendae titulo adipisci occupare retinere omnesque fructus
ad Familiae suae sustentationem convertere possit juribus sive institutis quibuscunque in contrarium non obstantibus Which Faculty or Dispensation was after ratified and confirmed by Letters Patents under the Great Seal of Ireland according to the Statute of 28 H. 8. c. 16. After this viz. 20 May An. 38 Eliz. Patrick Fynne the Incumbent died whereby the said Vicarage being void and so continuing void by the space of Six months whereby the Bishop had power to Collate thereunto by Lapse the said Bishop by virtue of the said Faculty or Dispensation adeptus est occupavit retinuit the said Vicarage perpetuae Commendae titulo and took the Fruits thereof to his own use until the 13 Febr. An. 1609. on which day the Bishop died After whose death the said Cyprian Horsefall having purchased the next Avoidance of that Vicarage Presented the said Wale who was Admitted Instituted and Inducted And afterwards the King Presents one Winch who being disturbed by the said Horsefall and Wale the King brought a Quare Impedit Whether the said Bishop when he obtained and occupied that Vicarage by virtue of that Faculty or Dispensation were thereby made compleat Incumbent thereof so as the Church being full of him no Title by Lapse could devolve to the King during the life of the Bishop was the Principal point moved and debated in this Case And in the Argument of this point which was argued at the Bar first by the Counsel at Common Law and then by two Advocates well versed in the Canon Law and at the Bench by all the Justices Two things were chiefly considered by those who argued for the Kings Clerk 1 Whether the Bishop could by any Law have and hold that Benefice without such Dispensation or Faculty 2 What effect or operation that Faculty or Dispensation shall have by the Law As to the First they held clearly for Law That a Bishop by the Ancient Ecclesiastical Law of England may not hold another Benefice with Cure in his own Diocess and if he hath such Benefice before his promotion to the Bishoprick that it becomes void when he is created a Bishop And this is the Ancient Law of England as is often said in the Bishop of St. David's Case 11 H. 4. 41 Ed. 3. 5. b. agrees therewith The Reason is for that the Bishop cannot visit himself and he that hath the Office of a Sovereign shall not hold the Office of a Subject at the same time as Hankeford said in the said Case of 11 H. 4. And on this Reason it is said in 5 Ed. 3. 9. That if a Parson be made a Dean the Parsonage becomes void for that the Dignity and the Benefice are not compatible So no Ecclesiastical person by the Ancient Canons and Councils could have Two Benefices with Cure simul semel but the first would be void by taking asecond And this was the Ancient Law of the Church used in England long before the Statute of 21 H. 8. cap. 13. which was made in Affirmance of the Ancient Law as appears in Holland's Case Co. par 4. And with this agrees the Books of 24 Ed. 3. 33. 39 Ed. 3. 44. a. N. Br. 34. l. And the Text of the Canon Law which is the proper Fountain of this Learning proves it fully Decretal de Praeben Dignit c. de multa Where it is said De multa providentia fuit in Lateranensi Concilio prohibitum ut nullus diversas Dignitates Ecclesiasticas vel plures Ecclesias Parochiales reciperet contra Sanctorum Canonum instituta c. Praesenti Decreto statuimus ut quicunque receperit aliquod Beneficium curam habens animarum annexam si prius tale Beneficium habebat eo sit ipso jure privatus si forte illud retinere contenderit etiam alio spolietur c. And with this agrees the Text in Decret Caus 21. q. 1. viz. In duabus Ecclesiis Clericus conscribi nullo modo potest So that it is evident that the Bishop could not by any Law have or retain that Benefice within his Diocess without a Dispensation which is Relaxatio Juris and permits that to be done which the Law had before prohibited It is to be observed That Commenda est quaedam provisio and therefore Gomez in Reg. de Idiomate saith That Commendare est Providere quod Commenda comprehenditur sub quibuscunque regulis de Provisione loquentibus And by the Canon Law the Consent of the Patron is requisite where a Benefice is given in Commendam Lib. 6. Decretal c. Nemo where the Gloss saith Ad Commendam vacabitur Patronus si qui alii ex tali Commenda laeduntur Also in Constit Othob de Commendis it is said expresly That Consensus Patroni ad Commendam requiritur The Canon Law holds these Commendams as very prejudicial and that in divers respects and therefore says That Experientia docet occasione Commendarum cultum Divinum minui Curam animarum negligi hospitalitatem Consuetam debitam non servari ruinis aedificia supponi c. 6. Extra cap Pastoris And whereas it is said of a Bishop That he is to be unius uxoris vir the Canonists expound it That he shall have but one Bishoprick or only one Cure for they say that per Commondam Bigamia contrahitur in Ecclesia Therefore it was well Resolved by that good and pious Bishop who when another Benefice was offered him to hold in Commendam said Absit ut cum Sponsa habeam Concubinam But for the clearer understanding of the nature and difference of these Commendams it is further to be considered That Commenda Ecclesiae is nothing else but Commendatio Ecclesiae ad Custodiam alterius and therefore Decret caus 21. q. 1. Qui plures the Gloss there saith Commendare nihil aliud est quam deponere This Commenda or Commendatio Ecclesiae is divers according to the nature of the Church and the Limitation or Continuance of the Commenda for a Commenda may be of a Church either Curatae or non Curatae and it may be either Temporanea viz. for a time certain as for Six months or Perpetua viz. during the life of the Commendatary A Church with Cure may not be given in Commendam unless upon evident necessity or the benefit of the Church viz. to supply the Cure till provision be made of a sufficient Incumbent And therefore by the Council of Lions it was provided That a Parochial Church should not be given in Commendam nisi ex evidenti necessitate vel utilitate Ecclesiae quod talis Commenda ultra semestris temporis spatium non duraret quod secus factum fuerit sit irritum ipso jure c. 6. Decretal c. Nemo But a Benefice without Cure may be given by the Canon Law for the subsistence of the Commendatary vel ad mensam In that sense the Canonists say That Commenda is quasi comedenda quia Ecclesiae quae
traditur in Commendam quasi comeditur devoratur and such a Benefice may properly be given in perpetuam Commendam Summa summar tit Commenda art 1 2. And by the Rule of the Canon Law he that comes in per Commendam is not Praelatus sed Procurator tantum est nisi Custos seu Administrator jus in Ecclesia non habet 6. Decretal c. Nemo Constit Othobon de Commendis fo 65. And therewith agrees 27 H. 8. 15. where it is said That the Cardinal of York had the Abbey of St. Albans in Commondam and yet was not the Abbot In this Case of a Commendam in Davis Rep. the Original or invention of a Commendam is ascribed to Pope Leo 4. An. Dom. 848. aut eo circiter as appears lib. Decretal caus 23. q. 2. where it is said Vnde Leo 4. scribit Qui plures Ecclesias retinet unam quidem Titulatam alteram vero sub Commendatione tenere debet For by the Ancient Canons and Councils a man could have but one Benefice and yet it is by experience found convenient that sometimes viz. in case of Necessity or Vtility of the Church a man may have the Charge and Fruits of more Benefices than one therefore was that Distinction invented and allowed that although a man shall have but one Benefice in Titulo yet he may have other Benefices in Commenda viz. That another Benefice may be commended and committed to his Custody and Cure until it be provided with an able Incumbent But afterwards there being great Abuses found in the granting of these Commendams by the Ordinaries for omnium rerum quarum est usus potest esse abusus virtute solum excepta says Aristotle another Canon was made in the Council of Lions An. Dom. 1274. for reformation thereof as appears lib. 6. Decretal de Elect. Elect. potesta c. Nemo Nemo deinceps Parochialem Ecclesiam alicui non Constituto in legitima aetate vel Sacerdotio Commendare praesumat nec tali nisi unam evidenti Necessitate vel Vtilitate Ecclesiae suadente Hujusmodi autem Commendam rite factam declaramus ultra Semestre temporis spatium non durare c. But the Gloss there saith That Ista Constitutio non comprehendit Romanum Pontificem ideo Romanus Pontifex potest Perpetuo Commendare So that the Pope notwithstanding that Canon had power to give Benefices in perpetuam Commendam And indeed after the said Council of Lions as the Pope had reserved to himself the sole power of giving Benefices in perpetuam Commendam so he reduced that power into act and used and practised the same in all Realms of Christendom Specially the Popes that were resident at Avignon in France in the times of King H. 2. Ed. 1. Ed. 2. Ed. 3. were very liberal not only in granting these Provisions contrary to our Statutes made in the times of King Ed. 1. Ed. 3. but in giving all sorts of Ecclesiastical Benefices in Commendam perpetuam And as at first it was done for the support of the Dignity of Cardinals as Pope Clement 6. professed in his Epistle to Ed. 3. Hist Walsingham fo 150. b. yet afterwards these Favours were purchased by other Ecclesiastical persons of all degrees in all Nations specially in England and Ireland And whereas the Canon Law says That a man hath a Cononical Title by virtue of a Commendam that must be understood de Commenda perpetua and not de Commenda Temporali for the Commenda Temporalis is but a kind of Sequestration and may be granted by every Ordinary pro tempore Semestri and therefore such a Commendatary non est Praelatus nec Maritus Ecclesiae nec facit Fructus suos sed est Administrator tantum Custos Ecclesiae And such a Commenda non est titulus nec facit titulum sed est quoddam depositum until the Church be provided with a sufficient Incumbent and therefore such a Commenda is commonly granted when the Patron doth not Present an able person or when the Church is Litigious But the Commenda perpetua which continues during the life of the Commendatary cannot be granted by any inferiour Ordinary but only by the Pope in such Countries where he hath Jurisdiction or by the King or his Delegates in this Realm or such whose power therein is derived from him or confirmed by him And this Commenda est titulus Canonicus nam militat eadem ratio in perpetuis Commendis quae in aliis Titulis Lib. 6. de Electionib c. Nemo And so it hath been often adjudged in Rota as Gomez affirms in Regul de Trien Possess where he argues this point Pro Con at large and where he saith That the Faculty of a perpetual Commendam is amplissima dispositio habet ubertatem verborum viz. Licentiam Facultatem fructus omnes percipiendi in proprios usus Convertendi c. Quae verba important Collationem Titulum non Simplex Depositum CHAP. XXII Of Lapse 1. What a Lapse is the gradations and Original thereof 2. The difference between the Canon and Common Law as to the time of Lapse and when the Six months shall begin 3. The King is Patron Paramount of all tbe Churches in England 4. In what Cases the Patron is to take notice of the Avoidance at his peril or not and how the Six months is to be computed by the days 5. A Lapse is not an Interest but a Trust or Administration and may not be transferr'd or granted over 6. How or from what time the Six months shall be computed before the Lapse incurr 7. Whether a Bishop may Collate by Lapse after Six months upon failure of the Clerks shewing his Letters of Orders or his Letters Missive or Testimonial 8. In what case Tempus occurrit Regi in point of Lapse 9. In what cases the King having Title of Lapse may lose his Presentment 1. LApsus or Lapse is a slip or departure of a Right of Presenting to a void Benefice from the Original Patron neglecting to Present within Six months next after the Avoidance to the Ordinary Whence it is commonly said That that Benefice is in Lapse or Lapsed whereunto he that ought to Present hath omitted or slipped his opportunity This Lapse may happen and be the Patron being ignorant of the Avoidance as well as if he were acquainted therewith or privy thereto except only upon the Resignation of the former Incumbent or the Deprivation upon any cause comprehended in the Statute of 13 Eliz cap. 12. In which cases the Bishop ought to give notice thereof unto the Patron In this matter of Lapse there are Three gradations ab Inferiore ad Superiorem after the neglect of the true Original Patron upon whose default 1 the Bishop of the Diocess within whose precincts the vacant Benefice lies shall Collate unless the King be Patron 2 If the Bishop Presents not within the next Six months then the Metropolitan shall Present And
of Six months By the Common Law of England as well Clerks as Laicks have Six months to Present before the Lapse incurr Dr. Stu. 116. b. Per la Com. Ley De Scoce Laici Patroni quadrimestre Ecclesiastici vero Sex mensium spatium habent sibi concessum ad Praesentandum personam idoneam Ecclesiae vacanti Skene Regiam Majestatem 10. b. But Jac. 6. pl. 1. cap. 7. Pl. 7. cap. 102. pl. 12. cap. 119 158. Concedit Patrono Laico spatium Sex mensium infra quod Praesentare debet The Question is not so much when the Term shall end and determine as when it shall commence and from what time the Six months shall be computed The Answer falls under a double consideration or is diversified according to the divers manners of Avoidances for if by Death Creation or Cession the Church be void then the Six months shall be computed from the Death Creation or Cession of the last Incumbent whereof the Patron is to take Notice at his peril But if the Avoidance be by Resignation or Deprivation then the Six months shall begin from the time of Notice thereof given by the Bishop to the Patron who is not obliged to take knowledge thereof from any other than by signification from the Bishop But in case the Avoidance were caused by an Union for so it might be then the Six months should be computed from the time of the Agreement upon that Union for in that case the Patron was not ignorant of but privy to the Avoidance for there could be no Union made but the Patron must have the knowledge thereof and then it was to be appointed who should Present after the Union as whether one or both either joyntly or by turns one after another as the Agreement was upon the Union 3. The Continuance of a Voidance of a Church by the several Lapses of Patron Bishop and Archbishops derives the Title of Presentation at last to the King as Patron paramount of all the Churches in England and wherever the Original Patron by Law ought to take notice of a Voidance at his peril there and in such case by a Non-Presentation within Six months from the time of such Voidance the Lapse will ever incurr And generally by the Admission Institution and Induction to a Second Benefice Prima Ecclesia vacat de persona of the Incumbent vacans continuat till new Induction But when an Archbishop Bishop or other Ordinary hath given a Benefice of right devolute unto him by Lapse of time and after the King Presenteth and taketh his Suit against the Patron who possibly will suffer that the King shall recover without Action tried in deceipt of the Ordinary or the possessor of the said Benefice In such and all other like cases where the Kings Right is not tried the Archbishop Bishop Ordinary or Possessor shall be received to counterplead the Title taken for the King and to have his Answer and to shew and defend his Right upon the matter although that he claim nothing in the Patronage so that the Ordinary may Counterplead the Kings Title for a Benefice fallen to him by Lapse Also when the King doth make Collation or Presentment to a Benefice in anothers Right the Title whereupon he groundeth himself may be well examined that it be true which if before Judgment it be by good information found to be otherwise the Collation or Presentment thereof made may be Repealed whereupon the true Patron or Possessor may have as many Writs out of Chancery as shall be needful There are some Statutes the King not being bound by Lapse of Time for nullum Tempus occurrit Regi which are good remedies and reliefs for the Ordinary that hath Collated by Lapse as also for the Clerk that is Collated for otherwise a Common person might by Practice have turned out a lawful Collatee to which purpose the Lord Hobart doth instance in a Case A Common person no true Patron Presents within Six months and the true Patron himself Presents not in time whereupon the Ordinary Collates by the Lapse against whom the Pretender brings a Quare Impedit because his Clerk was refused wherein he must needs prevail if his Title be good and it must be taken for good because neither Ordinary nor Incumbent could deny it for de non apparentibus de non existentibus eadem est ratio which Inconvenience is remedied by the said Stat. of 25 E. 3. c. 7. Note that Lapse doth not incurr to the Ordinary by reason of his not examining the Clerk within Six months Trin. 3 Jac. B. R. inter Palmer Smith Resolved per Cur. 4. If a Plea be depending between Two parties and it be not discussed and determined within Six months the Bishop may Present by Lapse and he that hath the Right to Present shall according to the Statute recover his Dammages But it is expresly provided by the Statute of 13 Eliz. 12. That no Title to Collate or Present by a Lapse shall accrue upon any Deprivation ipso facto but after Six months after Notice of such Deprivation given by the Ordinary to the Patron But if the Church become void by Death Creation or Cession of the last Incumbent the Patron is at his peril to take Notice of such Avoidances within the next Six months thereof But if it become void by Deprivation or Resignation the Clerk is not obliged to tender his Presentation to the Bishop nor the Patron obliged to Present his Clerk but within Six months next after Notice legally given him by the Ordinary of the Avoidance by such Deprivation or Resignation which Six months are to be calculated or computed by 182 days and not by 28 days to the Month Nor is there any Addition of time over and above the Six months allowed the Patron to Present from the Vacancy a Second Clerk in case the former were legally refused by the Bishop Yet the Ordinary may not take advantage of the Lapse in case the Patron Present his Clerk before the other hath Collated though it be otherwise with the Canonists Lindw c. Si aliquo evincente c. verb. Injuria But if the Bishop Collate and the Patron Present before Induction in that case it seems he comes too late And at the Common Law Sir Simon Degge in his Parsons Counsellor makes it a doubtful Question if the Church Lapse to the King and the Patron Presents before the King take advantage of the Lapse whether this shall avoid the Kings Title by Lapse This says he is a Question by Dyer though Hobart seems to be clear in it that the King shall not have the benefit of the Lapse but adds that divers Authorities are against them And in the Cases aforesaid wherein Notice of Avoidance ought to be given to the Patron before the Lapse can incurr the Patron is not obliged to take Notice thereof from any person other
gains not the Patronage from the Crown 3. The Ordinary's Collation by Lapse is only in the Patron 's right 4. What Presentation is and how in ease of Co-heirs or Joynt-tenants or Tenants in Common 5. Whether the Grantee of the next Presentation not Presenting at the First Avoidance shall lose the benefit of his Grant 6. The Right of Presentation is not an Ecclesiastical but Temporal Inheritance and cognizable at the Common Law 7. The power of the Ordinary in case of Coparconers Joyntenants or Tenants in Common as to Presentation 8. In what Case the Bishop hath Election whose Clerk he will Admit 9. Whether a Presentation is revokable before Institution 10. Whether the Son may succeed his Father in the Church and who may vary from or repeal his Presentation 11. What Nomination is and the Qualifications thereof 12. In what Case the Presentation is the Nomination or both as one in Law 13. In what case the Nominator shall have a Quare Impedit as well as he that hath Right of Presentation And there may be a Corrupt Nomination as well as a Corrupt Presentation 14. Whether the Collatee be Incumbent if the Bishop Collate him within the Six months And in what Case the Kings Presentation within the Six months may be an Vsurpation or not 15. Where the Ordinary Collates the Patron is to take notice of it at his peril 16. Who shall Present in case the Ordinary to whom a Lapse is devolved be within the Six months translated to another Bishoprick 17. A Resignation to a Proctor without the Bishops Acceptance makes not the Church void 18. A Parochial Church may be Donative exempt from the Ordinary's Jurisdiction and is Resignable to and Visitable by the Patron not the Ordinary 19. Where Two are to Present by Turns what Presentation shall serve for a Turn or not 20. By the Canons the Son may not succeed the Father in the same Church 21. To what a Presentation may be made 22. The Kings right of Presentation as Supream Patron 23. In what case the Kings Prerogative to Present doth not take place 24. In what Cases it doth 25. To whom the Patronage of an Archbishoprick belongs 26. Whether Alien Ministers are Presentable to a Church in England 27. In what Cases the Patron may Present de novo 28. Difference between the King and a Common person in point of Presentation 29. A Collation makes no Plenarty where it is tortious 30. Presentation may be per parol as well as by Writing 31. What amounts to a Revocation of the King's Presentation 32. Causes of Refusal of the Clerk Presented 33. Certain Law Cases pertinent to this Subject 34. Whether Institution granted after a Caveat entered be void 35. What shall be held a Serving of a Turn and good Plenarty and Incumbency against a Patron in Severalty 36. A Clerk refused by reason of his not being able to speak the Welsh Language 37. What is the best Legal Policy upon every Presentation by Vsurpation 38. One of Two Grantees of an Advowson to whom the other hath released may Present alone and have a Qua. Imp. in his own Name 39. A Clerk refused for Insufficiency by the Bishop may not afterwards be Accepted 1. COllation in its proper signification is the bestowing of a Benefice by a Bishop that hath it in his own proper right gift or patronage distinguish'd from Institution only in this That Institution into a Benefice is at the instance motion or Presentation of the Patron or some other having pro tempore the Patrons Right performed by the Bishop Extra de Instit de Concess Praeben c. But Collation is not only when the person is Admitted to the Church or Benefice by the Bishop or other person Ecclesiastical but also when the Bishop or that other Ecclesiastical person is the rightful Patron thereof or when the Bishop or Ordinary hath right to Present for Lapse of the Patron and yet sometimes Collation is and hath been used for Presentation And so Presentation Nomination and Collation are commonly taken for one and the same thing in substance though at times distinguished And whereas it hath been a Question If one hath the Nomination and another the Presentation which of them shall be said to be the very Patron it hath alwaies been taken to be the better opinion that he who hath the Nomination is Patron of the Church And where an Abbot had the Presentation and another the Nomination and the Abbey surrendred to the King he that hath the Nomination shall now have all for the King shall not Present for him that being a thing undecent for the King But as to Collation and Presentation they were in substance one and the same thing as aforesaid But to speak properly Collation is where the Bishop himself doth freely give a Benefice which is of his own Gift by right of Patronage or Lapse This word Collation seems also to be frequently used when the King Presents and hence it is that there is a Writ called Collatione facta uni post mortem alterius c. directed to the Justices of the Common Pleas Commanding them to direct their Writ to a Bishop for the Admitting one Clerk in the place of another Presented by the King which Clerk during the Suit between the King and the Bishops Clerk is departed this life For Judgment once given for the Kings Clerk and he dying before his Admission the King may bestow his Presentation on another This Collation Presentation and Nomination are in effect Synonima being distinguished only in respect rather of Persons than of Things 2. Yet there may be a great difference betwixt Presentation and Collation which gains not the Patronage from the King as appears in the Case of the Queen against the Bishop of York where the Queen brought a Quare Impedit against the said Bishop and one Monk and counted upon a Presentment made by King Hen. 8. in the right of his Dutchy of Lancaster and so conveyed the same to the Queen by Descent The Bishop pleaded That he and his Predecessors have Collated to the said Church c. and Monk pleaded the same Plea upon which there was a Demurrer And it was moved by Beaumont Serjeant That the Plea is not good for a Collation cannot gain any Patronage and cannot be an Usurpation against a Common person much less against the Queen to whom no Lapses shall be ascribâ—d and although the Queen is seized of this Advowson in the right of her Dutchy yet when the Church becomes void the right to Present vests in the Royal person of the Qu. and yet vid. the Old Regist 31. Quando Rex praesentat non in jure Coronae tunc incurrit ei Tempus Hamm. Serj. By these Collations the Queen shall be put out of possession and put to her Writ of Right of Advowson but the same ought to be intended not where the Bishop Collates as Ordinary but where he Collates
as in case of Single Corporations Bishops Deans and Parsons which must die and leave a Vacuum of the Freehold And this Next Avoidance is a Chattel locally where the Advowson is not where the Deed is for it was Resolved in the Case of Holland vers Shelley That the Advowson had such a Locality in the Rape where the Church was that it accrued to the Plaintiff wheresoever the Deed of Grant or the Grantee himself was 4. C. brought a Quare Impedit against the Archbishop of Canterbury and others and Declared upon a Grant of the Next Avoidance and the Defendant demanded Oyer of the Deed and the Plaintiff shewed a Letter which was written by his Father to the true Patron by which he had Writ to his Father that he had given to his Son that was the Plaintiff the next Avoidance and upon this there was a Demurr And the whole Court for the Demurr For that such Letter was a Mockery for the Grant was not good without Deed and Judgment was given accordingly But by Deed it is Grantable whereby Advowsons are also Grantable as other Inheritances are and the delivery of the Deed of Grant of it shall be instead of Livery made of the Church it self according to Sir Edward Coke in the first Part of his Institutes 5. If a Tenant in tail and his Son joyn in a Grant of the Next Avoidance it is void against the Son and no Confirmation for in the case of a Quare Impedit brought by Sir Marmaduke Wivel the Point was this Tenant in tail of an Advowson and his Son and Heir joyned in a Grant of the Next Avoidance The Tenant in tail died and it was Adjudged that the Grant was utterly void against the Son and heir that joyned in the Grant because he had nothing in the Advowson neither in possession or right nor in Actual possibility at the time of the Grant 6. The Acceptance of an Archdeaconry by one who hath a Benefice with Cure of Souls may work an Avoidance at the Canon Law as to such Archdeaconry yet an Archdeaconry and the Promotion thereof as being not any Cure of Souls though an Ecclesiastical Preferment seems not to be within the Statute of 21 H. 8. 13. And the Opinion of Wray Chief Justice in Vnderhill's Case upon that Statute was that he conceived the Law there to be qualified in that case by reason of a Proviso in the said Statute 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 7. In a Quare Impedit the Case was The Plaintiff counted that R. B. was seized of an Advowson and granted the Next Avoidance to the Plaintiff and H. B. and that afterwards the Church became void and after during the Avoidance H. B. released to the Plaintiff and so that it belongs to him to Present Upon this Count the Defendant did demurr in Law for it appeareth upon the Plaintiffs own shewing that H. B. ought to have joyned with the Plaintiff in the Action for the Release being made after the Church became void is not of any effect but utterly void So is the Grant of the Presentment to the Church where the Church is void for it is a thing in Action Vid. the Lord Dyer 28 H. 6. 26. 3 M. Dyer 129. 11 Eliz. Dyer 283. And afterwards Judgment was given that the Release was void 8. Touching Avoidances there is a wide difference between the Judgment of the Common Law and that of the Canon for if a meer Lay-man not having holy Orders be Presented to a Benefice the Church remains void according to the Canon Law notwithstanding such Presentation but at the Common Law albeit this be a meer nullity there also and void yet it doth adjudge the Church to be Full according to the publick Admission Institution and Induction and not according to the capacity of the person which is a thing secret until such an one be deprived for it by Sentence in the Spiritual Court and so the Church in construction of Law understand it of the Common Law is held void but from the time of Deprivation of which notice ought to be given to the Patron So that according to the Canon Law there cannot be a Plenarty by the Presentation Admission Institution and Induction of a meer Lay-man to a Church it is otherwise at the Common Law which doth not so much consider the Capacity or Incapacity of the person Instituted and Inducted as the Institution and Induction it self until such time as there is a Sentence of Deprivation in the Ecclesiastical Court 9. Cession is when an Ecclesiastical person Beneficed is Created a Bishop or when the Parson of a Parsonage taketh another Benefice without Dispensation not being otherwise qualified for Plurality In both which cases their first Benefices become void and are said to be so void by Cession insomuch that the King shall Present pro hac vice whoever be Patron to that Benefice which he had who was Created Bishop and in the other Case the Patron may Present So that if a Parson or Dean in England take and accept of a Bishoprick in Ireland it will cause that the First Church shall become void by Cession Resolved in Holland's Case and in Digby's Case 4. Rep. That the Patron may Present as soon as the Incumbent is Instituted in a Second Living without Deprivation 10. By the Council of Lateran it was Ordained That whoever having a Benefice with Cure of Souls should accept of another cum Cura should ipso jure be deprived of the former the Patron whereof might Present as to a Benefice void and this without any Sentence Declaratory of the First Church being void if there were no License or Dispensation to the contrary in the case to prevent a Cession of the former Benefice For it hath been Resolved That the Acceptance of a Second Benefice voids the former by Cession without any Sentence Declaratory by the Statute of 21 H. 8. 13. but if having a Benefice cum Cura he Accept of an Archdeaconry the same is not such a Benefice with Cure of Souls within the said Statute as to make the former void as was then also Resolved 11. In case of Cession in this kind it is requisite that Notice thereof be given by the Ordinary to the Patron otherwise the Lapse will not incurr against him in case he Present not within the Six months Nor do the Courts at Common Law take notice of such Cession until the same be certified unto them by the Ordinary And wherever an Ecclesiastical Dignity and a Benefice with Cure are Incompatible there the Acceptance of the one will be a Cession of the other For which reason if the Incumbent of a Parsonage or Vicarage with Cure be made Dean of a Cathedral his Parsonage or Vicarage becomes void by Cession
unless he be qualified for Plurality Or if a Dean be made a Bishop yea though a Dean or Parson in England be made a Bishop in Ireland as aforesaid his Benefice becomes void as was Resolved in Evans and Askwith's Case for that the Constitution or Council which makes it void is general and not limited to any place And so it was also Resolved 3 E. 3. Fitz. Trial and so adjudged 21 Jac. C. B. in the Case between Woodley and the Bishop of Exon and Manwaring 12. The case may so happen that albeit a man having a Benefice with Cure of Souls accept another and be Instituted and Inducted into the same yet his First Benefice shall not be void by Cession though the Benefices be incompatible though there be no Dispensation in the case and although himself be not otherwise qualified for Pluralities For it hath been Resolved That if a man having one Benefice accept another and be Instituted and Inducted into the Second and then read not his Articles that yet the First Benefice voids not by Cession because the Second is as not taken Notwithstanding it cannot be denied but that where a man having a Benefice with Cure of Souls above the value of Eight pounds per Ann. doth take another with Cure and is thereto Admitted Instituted and Inducted the First Benefice without Dispensation becomes void as in the Case of the King against George Lord Archbishop of Canterbury In which Case it was held That the Church was absolutely void in facto jure by taking of a Second Benefice and that by the express words of the Statute of 21 H. 8. So that by the Acceptance of a Second Benefice the Church is void facto jure quoad the Patron and all others Sed Q. whether void as to an Usurper for in some cases a Benefice may be void as to some persons and not void as to others As in the Case of Simony whereby as well as by Cession a Church becomes void yet in that case although it be void to all men quorum interest to the King and his Incumbent and all that claim under him and to the Parishioners to the Ordinary and to the like yet according to Sir Hen. Hobart Chief Justice it is not void to an Usurper for a man without Right cannot Present unto it as to a Church void nor the Ordinary so discharge himself if he receive the Clerk of an Usurper for he is none of them quorum interest Pasch 14 Jac. Rot. 1026. Case of Winchcombe against the Bishop of Winchester and Rich. Pulleston Hob. Rep. 13. If the Next Avoidance be granted to Three persons and after the Church become void and then Two of the Three Present the Third Grantee being a Clerk in this case the Presentation is good and the Bishop may not refuse him inasmuch as all Three were Joynt-tenants thereof by the Grant and only Two of them joyn in the Presentment for that the Third person cannot Present himself but if only one of these Three Grantees Present the Third the Bishop hath power to refuse him And if an Incumbent having the Advowson do Devise the Next Avoidance it seems it is good Trin. 13 Jac. B. R. Harris vers Austen Rol. Rep. 14. In Holland's Case it was Resolved That before the Statute of 21 H. 8. c. 13. if he which had a Benefice with Cure accept another with Cure the First was void but this was no Avoidance by the Common Law but by Constitution of the Pope of which the Patron might take Notice if he would and Present without Deprivation But because the Avoidance accrued by the Ecclesiastical Law no Lapse incurred without Notice as upon a Deprivation or Resignation so that the Church was void for the benefit of the Prtron not for his disadvantage But now if the First Benefice be of the value of Eight pounds per annum the Patron at his peril ought to Present for to an Avoidance by Parliament every one is party but if not of Eight pounds it is void by the Ecclesiastical Law of which he needs not take Notice 15. In a Quare Impedit The Defendant said A. was seized of the Advowson of the Church of D. and by Deed 19 Jac. granted to J. S. the Next Avoidance and that J. S. died and made his Executor who Presented the Plantiff to the Church being void Upon Non concessit it was found That A. granted to J. S. durante vita ipsius J. S. primam proximam Advocationem and that he died before the Church became void Whether this was an absolute Grant of the Next Avoidance as is pretended was the Question And Resolved it was not but it is limited to him to Present to the Advowson if it becomes void during his life and not that otherwise it should go to his Executors and therefore it was Adjudged against the Defendant 16. The Incumbent of a Church purchased the Advowson thereof in Fee and devised that his Executor should Present after his decease and devised the Inheritance to another in Fee It was said the devise of the Next Avoidance was void because when his Will should take effect the Church was instantly void But the Court held the devise was good for the Law is so and it shall be good according to the intent of the party expressed in his will The Grant of the Next Avoidance during the Avoidance is void in Law Steephens and Clark's Case More 's Reports 17. In a Quare Impedit the Case was The Corporation of B. being seized of an Advowson granted the Next Avoidance to J. S. and afterward granted primam proximam Advocationem to the Earl of B. who granted it to the Plaintiff The Church became void J. S. Presented his Clerk who was Inducted and then the Church became void again It was Resolved that the Second Grant was void so as the Plaintiff had no Title for when he had granted primam proximam Advocationem to one he had not Authority to grant it after to another but if the First Grant had been lost so as it could not have been pleaded there perhaps the Second Grand had been good 18. In a Quare Impedit the Case was H. being Incumbent of a Church was Created a Bishop in Ireland and the Queen Presented the Defendant It was the Opinion of the Justices That this Creating of the Incumbent a Bishop in Ireland was a good cause of Avoidance and that the Queen should have it by her Prerogative But if the Queen doth not take the benefit of the First Avoidance but suffers a Stranger to Present and the Presentee dies she may not have Prerogative to Present to the Second Avoidance 19. The Next Avoidance of a Church was granted to A. and B. A. releases to B. and after the Church became void It was Adjudged in this Case That B. may Present and upon Disturbance have a Quare Impedit in his own Name
notwithstanding they were several Advowsons and several Quare Impedits might be brought of them and several Actions maintain'd for their several Possessions yet the Presentment of one man to the Parsonage and Vicarage was no Plurality because the Parsonage and Vicarage are but one Cure And there is a Proviso in the Statute That no Parsonage that hath a Vicar endowed shall be taken by the Name of a Benefice with Cure within the Statute as to make it a Plurality 6. The Lord Hobart in Colt and Glover's Case against the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield is clear of Opinion That Bishopricks are not within the Law under the word Benefices in the Statute of 21 H. 8. cap. 13. So that if a Parson take a Bishoprick it avoids not the Benefice by force of this Law but by the ancient Common Law as it is holden 11 H. 4 60. But withal he holds it as clear That if a Bishop have or take two Benefices Parsonages or Vicarages with Cure either by Retainer or otherwise de novo he is directly as to these Benefices within the Law for he is to all purposes for those not a Bishop whether it be in his own Diocess or not but a Parson or Vicar and by that Name must sue and be sued and Prescribe and Claim For if any person having one Benefice with Cure c. take another c. whosoever will hold two Benefices must have such a Qualification and such a Dispensation as the Law 21 H. 8. requires Whereupon the Lord Hobart in the foresaid Case is clear of Opinion That if a man be qualified Chaplain to any Subject and then be made a Bishop his Qualification is void so as he cannot take two Benefices de novo after by force of that Qualification But if he had lawfully two Benefices before his Bishoprick he may by Dispensation of Retainer besides his former Dispensation to take two Benefices hold them with his Bishoprick And if a man being the King's Chaplain take a Bishoprick he holds that he ceaseth to be the King's Chaplain and Bishops are not in that respect Chaplains to the King within the meaning of the Statute So that the Clause of the Statute that gives the King power to give as many Benefices as he will of his own gift to his Chaplain will not serve them In this Case of Colt c. against the Bishop of c. he is of Opinion That if a man have a Benefice with Cure worth above 8 l. he cannot without Qualification and Dispensation procure another with Cure to be united to it after though they make but one Benefice for this Cautel of Union is provided for by Name But of Unions before he is of another Opinion Case Colt Hob. Rep. 7. In ancient times the Pope used to grant Dispensations of the Canons in this Realm and so might the King have done The first Statute that restrain'd the power of the Pope was that of 21 H. 8. of Pluralities That the Church shall be void notwithstanding any Grant of the Pope Also the power of the Pope was taken away by the Statute of 25 H. 8. Before that of the 21 H. 8. the Pope might have dispensed with a man to have twenty Benefices and so might the King The 21 H. 8. was the first Statute or Law which gave allowance for Pluralities afterwards by the 28 H. 8. the power of the Pope was given to the King But as it was said and agreed in the Case of Evans and Ascough that was not by way of Introduction but Cumulutive and by way of Exposition And by that Statute the Archbishop of Canterbury had in this matter a concurrent power with the King and Dispensation granted by the King or by the Archbishop is good Also in the said Case it was agreed by all the Justices That if a Parson or Dean in England doth take a Bishoprick in Ireland it makes the first Church void by Cession because Ireland is a Subordinate Realm to England and governed by the same Law For it was there agreed by all as well by the Justices as those of the Barr That if a Parson or Dean in England take a Bishoprick in Ireland the first Church is void by Cession Justice Whitlock gave this Reason for it Because there is but one Canon Law per totam Ecclesiam and therefore wherever the Authority of the Pope extended it self be it in one or divers Realms the taking of a Bishoprick made the Deanary or Parsonage void Nemo potest habere duas Militias nec duas Dignitates est impossibile quod unus homo potest esse in duobus locis uno tempore And 5 R. 2. F. Tryal 54. the whole Spiritual Court is but one Court which Book is very remarkable to that purpose That the Canon Law is but one Law Which Reason was also given by Justice Doderidge in the same Case and upon the same point who said That the Law of the Church of England is not the Pope's Law but that all of it is extracted out of Ancient Canons as well General as National Another Reason which he then gave was Because Ireland is a Subordinate Realm and governed by the same Law Because although before the time of H. 2. they were several Kingdoms or Realms yet the Laws of England were there Proclaimed by King John and is subject to the Laws of England And if the King having a Title to Present to a Church in Ireland confirm it to the Incumbent under the Great Seal of England it is good 45 Ed. 3. 70. 8. In Savacre's Case it was adjudged in the Common Pleas That if a Baron or others mentioned in the Statute of 21 H. 8. take divers Chaplains which have many Benefices and after they discharge their Chaplains from their Service they shall retain their Benefices during their Lives and if the Baron takes others to be his Chaplains they cannot take many Benefices during the Lives of the others which are Beneficed and Discharged of their Services for if the Law were otherwise the Lords might make any capable of holding Benefices by admitting them to be their Chaplains 9. T. prayed a Prohibition to the Arches the Case was this One had a Recovery in a Quare Impedit and he had a Writ to the Bishop against T. upon which A. his Clerk was admitted c. and after the Recovery died and T. supposing his heir to be in the Ward of the King and that the said A. took another Benefice without sufficient Qualification by which the Church was void by Cession and he attained a Presentation of the King and he was Admitted c. by the Lord-keeper being within the Diocess of Lincoln and A. sued him in the Ecclesiastical Court and T. prayed a Prohibition and it was granted per totam Curiam for without question there ought nothing to be questioned in the Ecclesiastical Court after the Induction of the party And whether it is a Cession
or not doth properly belong to the Common Law And Jones cited a Judgment in William's Case according Note that by the Constitution of Otho and Othobon That Institution and Induction is voidable in the Ecclesiastical Court if no Prohibition be prayed 10. In the Case of the King against the Archbishop of Canterbury and Thomas Prust Clerk in a Quare Impedit was vouched Holland's Case in Cok. 41 51. to shew that there is a difference between Voidance by Act of Parliament and Voidance by the Ecclesiastical Law For before the Statute by the taking of the second Benefice the first Church was void but not so that the Lapse incurred upon it And as for Pluralities the words of the Statute are That it shall be void as if he were naturally dead and therefore if a man takes a second Benefice and dies Issue ought to be taken whether the first vacavit per mortem And it is found That Not For it was void before the death of the Incumbent 11. P. was Collated Instituted and Inducted by the Bishop of Exeter Patron Dr. Hall the Bishop Collates another pretending that the first Incumbent had taken a second Benefice whereupon the first was void and revera the first Incumbent had a Dispensation And notwithstanding that the Bishop Sequesters the Benefice and upon Discovery thereof to the Court a Prohibition was granted 12. In Bene's Case against Trickett the point was Whether the value of the Church for Plurality by 21 H. 8. shall be eight pounds according to the Book of Rates and Valuation in the First-fruits Office or according to the very value of the Church per Annum Atkinson That according to the value of the King's Books For the Parliament never thought that any man could live upon so little as eight pounds per Annum which is not six pence a day Note 38 E. 3 4. and Dyer 237. but by the Court That it shall be according to the very value of the Church in yearly value in the Statute of 21 H. 8. And by Gawdy and Fenner to whom agreed Yelverton That the eight pound shall be accounted according to the very value of the Church per Annum 13. In a Quare Impedit it was doubted If A. having two Benefices with the Cure by Dispensation and then takes a third Benefice with Cure If now both the first Benefices or the first of them only be void Hieron said That it was adjudged that both of them should be void 14. If the King grant a Licence to an Incumbent to be an Incumbent and a Bishop and he afterwards be made a Bishop the nâ—â—ice is not void Henry de Blois Brother to King Stephen was Bishop of Winchester and Abbot of Glassenbury 15. It seems that at the Common Law if an Incumbent had taken a second Benefice with Cure neither the first nor the second had been void But by the General Council of Lateran held in the year 1215. it was ordained That if a man took divers Benefices with Cure of Souls the first should be void unless he had a Dispensation from the Pope This Constitution of the said General Council is ratified and confirmed in Pecham's Constitutions at a Provincial Synod held in this Realm Also if an Incumbent take a Second Benefice with Cure whereby the first is void by the Canon as to the Patron so as he may Present before any Deprivation yet until Deprivation it is not void as to a Stranger for if he sues a Parishioner for Tithes the taking of a second Benefice is not any barr to him Trin. 13. Car. B. R. per Justice Bark which Justice Yelverton in his Argument in Prust's Case said That it had been so Adjudged And if an Incumbent of one or more Benefices with Cure be consecrated Bishop all his Benefices are ipso facto vold upon which Voidance the King and not the Patron is to Present to the Benefices so void by Cession and any Dispensation after Consecration comes too late to prevent the Voidance for the Pope could formerly and the Archbishop now can sufficiently Dispense for a Plurality by the Statute of 25 H. 8. The chief Text of the Canon Law against Pluralities seems to be that of the Decretal de Praebend Dign c. de multa where it is said That in Concilio Lateranensi prohibitum ut nullus diversas Dignitates Ecclesiasticas vel plures Ecclesias Parochiales reciperet contra Sanctorum Canonum Instituta c. Et praesenti decreto statuimus ut quicunque receperit aliquod Beneficium curam habens animarum annexam si prius tale beneficium habehat sit ipso jure privatus si forte illud retinere contenderit etiam alio spolietur c. Consonant to which is that in Decret Caus 21. q. 1. In duabus Ecclesiis Clericus conscribi nullo modo potest In the Case of a Commendam adjudged in Ireland the Original and Inconvenience of Dispensations and Non obstante's was well weighed and considered where it was said That the Non obstante in Faculties and Dispensations was invented and first used in the Court of Rome for which Marsil Pat. pronounced a Vae against the said Court for introducing that clause of Non obstante That it was an ill President and mischievous to all the Commonwealths of Christendom For the Temporal Princes perceiving that the Pope dispensed with Canons in imitation thereof have used their Prerogative to dispense with their penal Laws and Statutes when as before they caused their Laws to be religiously observed like the Laws of the Medes and Persians which could not be dispens'd with See the Case of Penal Statutes Co. 7. fo 36. h. For this Reason it was that a Canonist said Dispensatio est vulnus quod vulnerat jus commune And another saith That all abuses of this kind would be reformed Si duo tantum verba viz. Non obstanie non impediâ—ent And Matth Par. in Anno Dom. 1246. having recited certain Decrees made in the Council of Lions which were beneficial for the Church of England Sed omnia baec alia says he per hoc repagulum Non obstante infirmantur 16. In a Quare Impedit the Case was Dr. Playford being Chaplain of the King accepted a Benefice of the Presentation of a common person and he after accepted another Presentation of the King without any Dispensation both being above the value of eight pounds per Annum The Question was Whether the first Benefice was void by the Statute of 21 H. 8. cap. 13. For if that were void by the acceptance of the second Benefice without Dispensation then this remains a long time void so that the King was intituled to present by Lapse and presented the Plaintiff The Statute of 21 H. 8. provides That he who is Chaplain to an Earl Bishop c. may purchase Licence or Dispensation to receive have and keep two Benefices with Cure provided that
tithable no Tithes of Pasture of Milch-kine grown dry unless kept for Sale 45. Composition for Tithes for life not good without Deed. 46. Estovers burnt in the house not Tithable The Hearth-peny good by Prescription 47. A Composition for Tithes de anno in annum 48. The Modus decimandi is Suable in the Ecclesiastical Court as well as the Tithe it self 49. Proâ—ibition in case of Libel to prove in perpet rei memo 50. Custome of Tithe-Grass Cocks as to both Mathes 51. In a Prohibition upon matter at Common Law and not within the Stat. of 2 E. 6. 13. the Suggestion need not be proved in Six months 52. Tithe-Hay of Headlands Custome and Prescription 53. Tithe-Hay of Heathlands also Tithe of Pidgeons 54. Minute Tithes to the Vicar 55. Tithes to Parson and Vicar may amount but to one Action 56. The Curate may not Prescribe in Tithes against the Parson 57. Curates may sue for Pensions in the Ecclesiastical Court 58. By the Civil Law the Parson to have Notice when Tithes set out 59. Action on the Case against a Compounder for Tithes Suing in the Ecclesiastical Court 60. Modus decimandi by one may hold as to others for a Prohibition 61. Composition for one year good without Deed not if for years 62. Tithe-Hasel Holly Willow Whitethorn Whether the Parishioner shall preserve the Parsons Tithe for him 63. Testis Singularis not sufficient to prove payment of Tithes in the Ecclesiastical Court 64. Composition for Tithes and a Prohibition thereon 65. Tithes taken away by a Stranger after they are set out the Parsons remedy lies at the Common Law 66. In what Case no Costs upon failure of Proof of the Suggestion within the Six months 67. Modus Decimandi may be Sued for in the Ecclesiastical Court where if denied they are to surcease 68. Custome in Cornwall touching Tithes of Sea-fâ—sh 69. In what Case an Agreement for Tithes for years may be good without Deed. 70. In what Court Tithes of Rents in London may be Sued 71. A Collector of Tithes cannot License a Parishioner to carry away his Corn. 72. Whether Debt lies for Treble dammages upon Fraudulent setting forth of Tithes 73. Tithes whether they belong to the Parson or the Vicar cognizable in the Ecclesâ—astical Court where the Right of Tithes is confessed 74. The Ecclesiastical Court not Judges of the Bounds of a Parish 75. Modus Decimandi in reference to a Park 76. A Frâ—udulent setting out of Tithes is no setting them out at all 77. The Vicar shall have Tithe of Rape-Seed being within a Prescription though a new thing in England 78. What the word Garba signifies 79. Whether Wood in its own nature be great Tithes and in what case it shall pass by the words de minutis Decimis 80. If two Titles of Tithes unite in one person there need but one Action for them 81. A Parson may not sett a Lease for years of Tithes per parol only 82. If a Parson be disturbed in carrying away his Tithes seâ— out his Remedy lies properly in the Ecclesiastical Court 1. TITHES Dismes Decimae probably an abbreviation from the Saxon Teoâ—unâ— or Tithing properly Decuria in that Language Lamb. Expl. of Sax. words verb. Deâ—uria That the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem were competently supplied by the Contributions of the Jewish Proselytes is very conjecturable in that they sold their possessions and brought the price thereof and laid it down at the Apostles feet and such as then planted the Gospel and labourâ—â— in the Word and Doctrine had their maintenance by the Contributions of their Converts Vid. Concil Grang. Can. 7 8. And St. Cyprian writing to his Church of Carthage Epist 33 34. to receive Aurelius and Cellerinus Confessors saith in Epist 34. Presbyterii honorem designasse nos ilâ—is jam sciatis ut sportulis iisdem cum Presbyteris honorentur Divisiones Mensurnas aequatis quantitatibus partiantur Know you that we have already designed to them the Dignity of Presbytership that they might be honoured with such allowances as Presbyters have and receive equal shares in the Monthly Dividends So that Sportulae were the allowances which in this Infancy of the Gospel the Presbyters had out of the Contributions of the Converts And the Fratres Sportulantes mentioned by him in Epist 66. were the Clergy which received such allowance These Converts after the Conversion of Constantine the Emperour many of them being Governours and Nobles settled great and large Demesn-Lands upon those who Converted them and that according to Mr. Seldens conjecture the first Oratories or places of Publick Worship were built in the Lands bestowed on them which first Oratories were called Cathedrals Sees or Seats from their constant Residence thereon That the Christian Church even in times of Persecution laid claim to Tithes as due Jure Divino is partly confessed by Mr. Selden himself citing some passages in the Ancient Fathers to that purpose But when the Empire became Christian then the Christian Clergy did more earnestly press the Donation of Tithes and in process of time they prevailed not only by Preaching and Canons but by the Edicts of Emperours and Kings to have Tithes given to the Church And it appears that the Roman Empire where-ever it did reduce any Conquered Countrey in formam Provinciae appointed the Farmers of the Customes to collect among other Impositions the Tenths of the Tenants of the Empires that is of all who occupied any Land in the Conquered Province either as immediate Tenants to the Empire or as Sub-Tenants under them The Publicans therefore who collected these Tributes were called Decumani as Mr. Selden pag. 39. of his History of Tithes doth observe out of Appian But whether these Tenths were received by the Senate or Emperours upon a Civil or Religious account is not liquid and clear For the Emperours alwaies till Christianity came in nay Constantine and other Emperours even after Christianity was received till Gratian's time as the Noble and Learned Du-plessy in his Mystery of Iniquity observes out of Zosimen continued the chief Pontifice or High-Priesthood in their own persons And as touching us here in England Dr. Heylin P. H. Treleyny in his Treatise touching Tithes p. 3. saith Tithes are not given to the Ministers by the People for Sr. Ed. Coke on Litt. Tenures lib. 1. c. 9. Sect. 73. fo 58. asserteth That it appears by the Laws and Ordinances of Ancient Kings and especially of King Alfred That the first Kings of this Realm had all the Lands of England in Demesn and Les Grandé Mannors Royalties they reserved to themselves and with the Remnant they for the defence of the Realm enfâ—offed the Barons of the Realm with such Jurisdiction as the Court Baron now hath And at this time when all the Lands of England were the King Demesns that Ethelwolph the Second Monarch of the Saxon race his Father Egbert being the first which brought the former Heptarchy under one
remove the Tithe which circumstance of Time and the convenience thereof is triable by a Jury and if the Parson exceed the Time the Parishioner may have his Action against him as a Trespasser ab initio And some conceive that the Parishioner is not bound to give the Parson Notice when he doth set forth his Tithe By the Civil Law the Parishioner ought to give the Parson Notice when the Tithes are set forth but it hath been Adjudged that the Common Law doth not so oblige a man But a severance of Nine parts from the Tenth part there must be for such Severance is so necessary and in a kind so essential to Tithes that they are not due nor is it Tithe within the Statute of 2 Ed. 6. until such Severance be made Yet the Parson may Grant his Tithes growing upon the Land before Severance which ought to be made by the Owner of the Land for though the property of Tithes set out by the Owner of the Land belongs to the Parson yet it is otherwise if they be set out by a Stranger And in case the Land be not in any Parish then the King shall have the Tithe thereof by his Prerogative and by the Custome of England But where Lands in themselves Tithable are not manured or ploughed specially in prejudice to the Parson in such case he may notwithstanding Sue the Occupier thereof in the Spiritual Court for the Tithes of that Land But if the Parishioner duly sets forth and severs the Tithe in convenient time and after Dammage happen to him by the Parsons not taking the same away in like convenient time in that case the Parishioner may have his Action on the Case against the Parson 7. The Common Law of this Realm takes notice of Tithes by the word Dismes Decimae of the French Decimes signifying Tithe or the Tenth part of all the Annual Fruits either of the Earth or of Beasts or Mans labour and industry due unto God and consequently to him that is of the Lords Lot and hath his share by his special appointment It signifieth also the Tenths of all Spiritual Livings yearly given to the Prince called a perpetual Disme which anciently were paid to the Pope until Pope Vrban gave them to K. Richard the Second to aid him against Charles the French King and such others as upheld Clement the Seventh against him as aforesaid It signifieth likewise a Tribute levied of the Temporalty But here it is to be understood as Quota pars omnium bonorum licite quaesitorum Deo Divina Institutione debita which though according to the Canon Law is a Tenth of Annual and lawful Encrease commanded to be paid to the Sons of Levi for their maintenance in consideration of their Ministry yet at the Common Law it is an Ecclesiastical Inheritance collateral to the Estate of the Land and of its own nature due only to Ecclesiastical persons by the Ecclesiastical Laws The Practice whereof never met with any considerable interruption in any Age until Charles Martel's Sacrilegious Infeudations of Tithes about the year 650. which usher'd in such a President into the Christian World as could never to this day grow obsolete and out of use Notwithstanding from the beginning it was not so nor did any Lay-persons pretend to Tithes originally nor legally till the Statutes of Dissolutions of Abbies made them capable thereof whereby the Tithes appropriated to such Houses of Religion as were dissolved became a Lay-Fee and Suable by the Laity in the Kings Ecclesiastical Courts 8. Where in the Books of the Common Law it is Reported That before the Council of Lateran every man might give his Tithes to what Church he pleased and might have bestowed them upon what person he thought best there it is also asserted for reason That before that Council there were no Parishes nor Parish-Priests that could claim them But by a Canon made in that Council every man is since compellable to pay his Tithes to the Parson or Vicar of that Parish where the Tithes arise Here may arise a question Whether there were not Parishes long before any Council at Lateran For admitting that the Second Lateran Council was held in the year 1120 as S. Tho. Ridley computes it or that the general Council of Lateran was held in the year 1179 as Sir Simon Degge calculates it yet there seems of be a division into Parishes some Centuries of years before either of these For it is said That Cities and Countries were divided into several Parishes by an Ordinance of Pope Dionysius about the year 266 and from him derived into this and other Realms Also that Ecclesiastical persons first in this Kingdom made Divisions of Parishes as appears by our own Chronicles and that the first Practice thereof came from Honorius the 4th Archbishop of Canterbury after Augustine who died in the year 693 And such as have followed the course of Antiquity in this matter conceive that the original of Parishes had its President from the practice of some Ancient Roman Bishops it being as some would have it recorded in the Pontifical of Damasus but in Anastasius's Bibliothecar it is found That when Peter had appointed and ordained Priests c. and Cletus had reduced them to a certain number Pope Euarist assigned to each of them his Parish and as to the time when those Parishes were assign'd by Euarist it must be about the beginning of the second Century which was many Centuries before the C. of Lateran as also was the practice thereof here in England by Honorius as aforesaid the truth whereof is approved by Cambden But Cavendum c. saith Marsil in his Book De Red. Eccl. c. 12. heed must be taken as to the word Parish for it is equivocal having various acceptations as sometimes when nothing is named but a Parish the whole Diocess is understood which notion of the word often occurs in the Councils in which sense Barbatia spake a wide word for the Pope in his Tract de praest Card. when he said that in respect of his Holiness the whole world was but one Parish Sometimes a Parish is taken for such a part of the Diocess as was assign'd to some Priest arbitrarily sent and maintained by the Bishop to whom such a Parish paid all their dues and he to his Clergy about which time this custome was introduced that all Church-dues should be at the Bishops disposal to be divided into four portions whereof he should haveâ— part for himself another for his Clergy a 3d for the Poor and Strangers and the 4th to be reserved to the Parishioners for the repairing of Churches the collection of which dues was committed to the care of the Chorepise from which Quadripartite division probably came that custome whereby the Bishop of every Diocess might before the C. of Lateran make distribution of the Tithes within his Diocess where he thought convenient
Prohibition for that the Law shall decide thereupon it was between Dawes and Huddlestone No Tithes shall be paid in kind without a Custome for Fish taken in the high Sea out of any Parish Hill 14 Car. B. R. between Long and Dircell per Curiam and Prohibition granted accordingly And Justice Jones said that on an Appeal to the Delegates out of Ireland in the Lord Desmond's Case it was Agreed That for such Fish so taken only Personal Tithes are due deductis expensis Likewise no Tithes in kind shall be paid de jure for Fish taken in a Common River which is not enclosed as in a Pond enclosed for that they are Ferae naturae although they are taken by one who hath a severed Piscary there and although the place where they are taken be within the Parish of that Parson who claims them for it is a Personal Tithe in which Tithes ought to be paid deductis Expensis Pasch 15 Car B. R. between Gold and Arthur and others Prohibition was granted where the Suit was for Tithes of Salmon in the River of Exe. Mich. 15 Car. between Whislake and the said Arthur and others the like Prohibition granted on the same matter between other parties And in the Case of a Prohibition it was Resolved That Tithe shall be paid for Fish taken in the Sea which is not within any Parish and they shall be paid to the Parson of the Parish where the Fish is landed Flax pays a Predial Tithe payable when dressed up Coke Mag. Char. 649. The Tithes of Flax are Minutae Decimae Mich. 14 Car. B. R. in Noah Webb's Case Forest-Lands that lie in no Parish or between two Parishes and anciently such are not Tithable by the King or his Patentees but if the Forest be in a Parish and Land therein which is Tithe-Free if the Forest happen to be disforested it shall pay Tithes in kind Crompt Jurisd 52. Bacon Chief Justice at Sarum-Assize the Case was A. Lessee for years of the Earl of H. prayed a Prohibition against the Vicar of L. to stay a Suit in the Ecclesiastical Court for Tithes because the Lands out of which the Tithes were demanded were parcel of the Forest of B. whereof the King was seised in right of his Crown and he and all his Predecessors held the said Land discharged of Tithes and shewed that the King had granted the said Forest to the Earl of Hertford in Fee and so he ought to have them discharged of Tithes In that Case it was held by the Court That it was only a Priviledge annexed to the Crown during the time that the Land was in the Crown but the Court doubted whether the Patentee might have such Priviledge But yet de bene esse the Prohibition was granted If Tithes do lie in any Forest as in the Forest of Windsor Rockingham Sherwood or other Forest which is not any Parish the King shall have them by his Prerogative and not the Bishop of the Diocess or Metropolitan of the Province as some have thought But yet it seems by 22 Ass 25. if there be cause of Suit for such Tithes against the parties who ought to pay the same such Suit might be brought in the Ecclesiastical Court But if a Stranger takes away such Tithes from the Parson or Vicar there for such Trespass the Suit may be in the Temporal Court as the same may be for taking away other goods in the like case Adjudg 15 Car. B. R. Fowl taken by a Faulkner who hawks for his pleasure shall not pay Tithe but if a Fowler kill Fowl and make a profit of them it hath been held that he shall pay a Personal Tithe for them Pasch 15 Car. Adjudg acc Fruits of Trees as Apples Pears c. are Tithable presently upon their gathering and are Predial Tithes for the subtraction whereof the Parishioner is impleadable Stat. 2 Ed. 6. c. 13. Fruits of Trees Apples Pears c. Mast of Oak Beech c. are Predial Tithes Coke Magn Chart. 649. The Fruits of Orchards and Gardens are Tithable in their proper kinds and to be paid when they are gathered unless there be some Modus or Rate-Tithe paid in lieu thereof Furse is Tithable and pays a Predial Tithe unless the Owner thereof can prescribe or prove a Custome of Tithing Milk or Calves of the Cattle on the ground where the Furse grows Mich. 29. Eliz. B. R. Vid. Heath G GArdens are Tithable as other Lands and therefore the Herbs which grow therein pay Tithes in kind Also Plants Seeds Woad Saffron Hemp Rape c. pay Tithes in kind unless the Parson make an Agreement for the same otherwise the Tenth part must be set forth for the Parson when the Owner receives his Nine parts Mich. 8. Jac. C. B. in Baxter's Case Trin. 9 Jac. B. R. The whole Court Glebe is a portion of Land Meadow or Pasture belonging to or parcel of the Parsonage or Vicarage over and above the Tithes If it be Demised by the Parson to a Lay-man it pays Tithe otherwise if he keep it in his own hands For Glebe kept in the Vicars own hands pays no Tithe to the Parson Impropriate it is otherwise if it be in the hands of his Lessee by whom it is Tithable if lett by a Parson Impropriate And although Glebe-Lands are not properly Tithable because Ecclesia Ecclesiae Decimas non debet solvere yet if Glebe-Lands be leased out the Parson the Lessee shall pay the Small Tithes arising out of such Glebe-Lands to the Vicar that hath Small Tithes upon his endowment as in Blinco's Case And yet in that case the Vicar Libelled in the Ecclesiastical Court to have Tithes of the Glebe of the Parson and a Prohibition was granted for that the Glebe shall pay no Tithe Notwithstanding which if a Parson lease his Glebe-Lands and do not withal Grant the Tithes therof the Tenant shall pay the Tithes to the Parson Likewise if a Parson sow his Glebe-Land and then Lease the same the Tenant shall pay the Tithes of this Corn to his Landlord the Parson Yet if a Parson sow his Glebe and die before Severance some have held that his Executors shall not pay Tithes of this Corn. And albeit where Glebe-Lands are leased out by the Parson the Lessee shall as aforesaid pay the Small Tithes thereof to the Vicar that hath the Small Tithes upon his Endowment yet he shall not have the Small Tithes arising upon such of the Parsons Glebe-Lands as the Parson keeps in his own hands Likewise on the other hand it hath been held That the Vicar upon a general Endowment shall not pay Tithes of his Glebe to the Parson or of the Fruits that arise from the same and that for the same reason aforesaid Quia Decimas Ecclesia Ecclessae reddere non debet But the Lessee of the Parsons Glebe shall pay him the Tithes thereof to this purpose the Case was A Parson
qualities of the Persons of whom they were begotten 6. The different modes of prosecution of Bastardy in the Temporal and Ecclesiastical Courts 7. Limitation of Time in reference to Birth and Bastardy by the Civil Law The chast Widow of Paris whose Child born the 14 th Month after her Husbands death was adjudged Legitimate 8. Of a Child born before Marriage or immediately after Marriage or long after Marriage of a Woman whose Husband dyed without Bedding her whether Bastard or not 9. The legal computations of Time touching the Birth of a Child whether Legitimate or not And of such as are begotten after a Divorce 10. The punishment of a Woman having a Bastard that may be chargeable to the Parish 11. How the same Person may in divers respects be both a Bastard or Nullius Filius and yet a Son 12. The Physicians report in Court in a Case at Common Law how long a Woman may go with Child 13. The Bishops Certificate requisite in a Plea of Bastardy indisability of a Plaintiff 14. The power of the Justices of the Peace and of the Sessions in reference to the reputed Fathers of Bastards 15. In an Action for saying such an one had a Bastard a Prohibition to the Ecclesiastical Court because they admitted the Defendants Confession but would not allow of his Justification 16. Who are held as Bastardiz'd at the Common Law 17. What a Mulier is at Common Law 18. Other Descriptions of Muliers and Bastards 19. The difference between the Civil and Common Law in point of Muliers and Bastards 20. What kind of Divorce shall Bastardize the Issue 21. Different Resolutions touching Bastardy 22. A Man is Divorc'd Causa Frigiditatis Marries again hath Issue by the second Wife the first Living Q. Whether that Issue be a Bastard 23. A Case of Remark touching this Subject adjudg'd in Ireland 1. BASTARD Bastardus Nothus Spurius Filius Naturalis Filius Populi Filius nullius Incestuosus Adulterinus illegitimo coitu Progenitus Bastard is a French word Bastardd Brittish yet some are of opinion that the word Bastard hath its derivation from two German words Boes art that is Degeneris ingenii Q. an non è Graec. Bassaris i. e. Meretrix vel Concubina Bastard and Filius Naturalis are both one Bastard is that Male or Female that is begotten and born of any Woman not Married so that the Childs Father is not known by order and judgment of Law for which reason he is called Filius Populi 2. Bastard and Mulier are opposed each to other at the Common Law Otherwise at the Canon Law For at the Common Law by Mulier is meant and understood one that is lawfully begotten and born and therefore where they are compared together we shall find at that Law this addition to them Bastard eigne or Elder and Mulier puisne or Younger and by the Common Law he or she that is born before Marriage celebrated between the Father and Mother is called a Bastard and by that Law a Child begotten and born of a Woman out of Marriage by one who after Marrieth her is said to be not a Mulier but a Bastard This word Mulier seems to be a word corrupt from Melior or the French Melieur signifying at Common Law the lawful issue preferr'd before an Elder Brother born out of Marriage But by Glanvile such Lawful Issue seems rather Mulier than Melior because begotten à Muliere and not ex Concubina for he calls such issue Filios Mulieratos opposing them to Bastards Quia Mulieris appellatione uxor continetur l. Mulieris 13. ibid. gloss De verb. sign 3. Bastardy Bastardia at the Common Law signifieth a defect of Lawful Birth objected to one begotten out of Marriage which Law doth distinguish Bastardy into Special and General The later whereof being only a Certificate from the Bishop of the Diocess to the Kings Justices after just enquiry made whether the Party enquir'd of be Bastard or not upon some question of Inheritance and the former being only a Suit commenced at Common Law against him that calls another Bastard This being called Bastardy special because Bastardy is the principal and special matter in Tryal As the other is called Bastardy General because Inheritance is there the chief thing under debate and in contest By both these significations Bastardy at the Common Law seems to be taken only for an Examination or Tryal whether a Mans Birth be illegitimate and so does but rather imply what it is not than express what it is Which according to a better Definition is an unlawful state of Birth disabling the Partie to succeed in Inheritance 4. It appears by what hath been said that a Bastard is one that is born of any Woman so as the Father be not known according to the order of Law So that if any Woman hath a Child before her Marriage it is a Bastard And though the Father thereof after Marry the Mother yet in the judgment of the Common Law it is still a Bastard but at the Canon Law it is otherwise as aforesaid If one Marry infra gradui Maritagii and hath thereby Issue Q. whether it he a Bastard or Mulier in case Divorce doth after thereupon ensue If there be Issue by a second Husband or Wife the former then living such Issue is a Bastard A Woman Eloping from her Husband and Living in Avoutry her Husband being beyond Sea that he cannot come at her having Issue in this time this Issue seems to be a Bastard But by the Common Law if the Husband be infra quatuor maria he within the Jurisdiction of the King of England and his Wife have Issue in his absence No proof is Admissable to prove the Child a Bastard unless there be an apparent impossibility of Procriation in the Husband in which case such Issue albeit born within Marriage is a Bastard And by the Civil Law if the Husband be so long absent from his Wife or by no possibility of Nature the Child can be his or the Adulterer and Adulteress be so known to keep company together as that by just account of time it cannot fall out to be any other Mans Child but the Adulterers himself it is accounted to be a Bastard And yet in these very cases within this Realm unless the Husband be all the time of the impossibility of Procreation as aforesaid beyond the Seas the Rule of Law will hold true Pater is est quem Nuptiae demonstrant Note in debt upon an obligation by Cook Chief Justice And so was the Opinion of the Civilians That a Disagreement to the Marriage had under the Age of of Consent at the Age it ought to be published in Court otherwise the Issue may be Bastarded For a Disagreement in Writing is not a sufficient Disagreement nor a good Proof 5. The Law hath given several Appellations for the distinction of Bastards according to
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
Hill Brownl Rep. pa. 1. Actions of Debt Brownl Rep. ibid. Action for stopping the Parsons Way of carrying his Tithes Mich. 8 Jac. B. R. Bulstr par 1. a Hob. 308 309. b Idem 300. Cro. 454 482. c Mich. 17 Eliz. B. R. Hughs Abr. verb. Dismâ—s d Co. lib. 11. Regist 49. Reynold's C. Mores Rep. e Hil. 7 〈◊〉 E. of Shrewsburiâ—'s Case Bulstr p. 1 â— f Pasch 41 El. B R. per Cur. Hill 10 Jac. B. Parson of Stanfield in Suffolk per Cur. Prohibit granted g Pasch 16 Jac. B. Nicholls Hooper per Cu. 3 Jac. B. R. Spencer Johnson Pasch 17 Jac. B. Kenniston h 2 H. 4. Rot. Parl. nu 93. i Cro. pa. 1. k More Case 1212. l P. 7 Jac. C. B. adjudg Mich. 6 Jac. C. B. Smith's Case Bulstr 2. 238. Cro. 2. 42. 116. Green's Case m Cro. 2. 42. Hall vers Phettiplace n 17 Jac. B. R. Cro. Car. 237. 559. Jones 254. o F. N. B. 53. p Adjudg Mich. 38 El. C. B. Grisman vers Lewes Cro. pa. 3. 446. q Mich. 8 Jac. C. B. inter Baxter Hopes r Roll. 1. 646. a. 6 7. r Rol. 1. 647. 〈…〉 s Hil. 43 El. C. B. Sharinglon and Fleet-wood's Case Goldsb 157. t Hil. 7 Car. B. R. Lacie vers Long. Jones Rep. u Co. 11. 19. 2. 43. w Yelvert 94 95. x Pasch 21 Jac. B. R. Snell and Bennet's Case Godbolt 333. y Mich. 8 Jac. 1610. C. B. Brownâ— Rep. par 2. z Cro. par 1. a Crop pâ— 2. b Co. Inst par 2. 652. b. c 2 Car. B. R. Poph. Rep. 197. d Parker vers Kempe Bulstr par 2. Co. Inst pa. 2. 643 Co. 11. par 49. a. Dr. Stu. 173. e More Case 1278. f M. 11 Jac. C. B. Sâ—arington's Case 2 El. Dyer 170. 2 Ed. 6. c. 13. Co. 2. Inst 656. Plow 204. â— 396. b. vid. 15 Car. B. R. in Sugden and Câ—ttel's Case g Pasch 14 Jac. B. R. Witt and Buck's Case Bulstr 165 166. par â— h Hil. 6 Car. B. R. Strowd vers Hoskins Jones Rep. Sherington and Fleetwood's Case Cro. par 1. Bulstr par 3. i More Rep. Holliday Lees Case k More Cas 716 716. Jac. C. B. Pinder's Case l Adjudg Pasch 6 Jac. C. B. in â—indâ—r and Spencers Case m Sir S. Dâ—ggs Law of Tithes c. 4. n Pasch 5 Jac. C. B. Mauâ— Somerton's Case Brownl 1. par 84. o More Cas 1271 1272. q More r Mich. 19 Eliz. B. R. Pasch 34 El. C. B. s More 1279. t Pasch 40 Eliz. Austin Lucas Adjudg per Cur. u Mich. 14 Jac B. R. Lee and Collin's Case Tr. 15 Jac. B. Belle Tarde Prohibition granted M. 14 Ja. B. R. Dr. Beste Williams Prohibition granted Hill 14 Jac. B. R. Kneebon Woodret Consultation denied M. 3 Jac. B. R. per Towse said That it was one Samms Case of Essex Adjudg'd Tr. 38 El. B. R. inter Sherington Fleetwood per Curiam M. 7 Car. B. R. Facy Large per Cur. Tr. 15 Jac. B. R. Lâ—mkin Wilde Mich. 8 Car. B. R. Baxter Hopes Cas Brownl 2. pa. acc Trin. 20 Jac. Winch. 33. acc a M. 17 Jac. B. R. Mich. 2 Jac. B. R. Webb's Case Mich. 8 Car. by 3 Justices B. Istr 2. 238. March 56. b Broo. Dismes 16. Lane 16. Golds b. 147. Plow 66. c Term. 7 Jac. B. R. Broo. Dismes 17 d Pasch 15 Car. Adjudg acc Hugh Abr. e More Case 1279. f Pasch 17 Jac. B. R. g Hill 16 Jac. B. R. inter Daudrige and Johnson h Ibid. i 20 Eliz. B. R. by Wray and all the other Judges k Co. 4. 44. a. 2 Inst 655. Dr Stud. l. 2. c. 55. Hob. 176. l Hugh's Parsons Law cap. 27. m 8 H. 6. 22 23. 9 H. 6. 17. 6 E. 3. 27. 17 E. 3. 11. 12 H. 4. 13. 19 H. 6. 75. 34 H. 6. 36. 31 H. 6. 28. 35 H. 6. 5. 26 H 8. 7. 27 H. 8. 20. 21 acc n Pasch 17 Car. in Hitchcock's Case o Pasch 17 Car. B. R. Hichcock Hichcock's Case Marsh 87. p Mich. 6 Jac. C. B Case Mildmay Hutton Pasch 15 Car. Adjudg acc Ibid. r 38 Eliz. C. B. s Smith's Case C. B. t 12 Ed. 4. Dr. Stu. 169. u Hil. 6 Car. B. R. Halsey vers Halsey Jones Rep. w Broo. Dismes 6. Brownl 2. pa. 30. x Co. on Litt. 159. Hill 6 Jac. Brownl Rep. pa. 1. Cases in Law c. Ford vers Pomroy Brownl pa. 2. Hill 6 Jac. â— pl. 13. per Cur. Trin. 21 Jac. B. R. Guin Merryweather's Case Roll. Rep. Stebs and Goodwich's Case Mores Rep. y Hob. 107. z More Case 1280. a Hob. 106. b March 65. c Co. Select Cases 14 46 48. f Co. 2. Inst 653. g Co. 1. pa. 33. 2 Ed. 6. 13. 32 H. 7. Co. 44 Brownl 2. pa. 33. h Yelvert 86. i Lane 17. Hob. 269 296 309. k Hob 176. l Co. 13. 16. m Co 2. B. of Winchester's Case n Co. ibid. o Wright and Wright's Cas Cro. par 1. p Mordant and Cummin's Case Cro. par 3. q Mich. 11 Car. B. R. Sydown and Holme's Case Cro. par 3. Parkins and Hind's Case Cro. par 1. Mich. 28 Eliz in Cur. Wardor More Green and Buskyn's Cas Mores Rep. Quarles and Sparting's C. Mores Rep. Mich. 6 Jac. C. B. Case of Modus Decim Co. lib. 13. Mich. 14 Jac. B R. Wintell against Childe Bulstr par 3. Mich. 9 Jac. C. B. Brownl Rep. par 1. Cases in Law c. Brownl ibid. Discharge of Tithes Coke 2. The Bish of Winchester's Case 38 Eliz. fo 43. Parkins and Hind's Case Cro. par 1. Cornwallis Spurling's C. Cro. par 2. n More Cas 1270. o 15 Car. Adjudg p Pasch 15 Car. Adjudg acc a Pasch 7 Jac. C. B. b 15 Car. by Barkley Justice in C. B. c 12 H. 8. 4 d More Case 322. e Case Sharp versus Sharp Noy Rep. f 12 H. 8. 4. by all the Justices g Bulstr 8. 165. h More Case 603. i Tr. 8 Car. B. R. Earl of Desmond's Case adjudg Cro. 1. pa. 192. 15 Car. B. R. Adjudg Hugh Abr. verb. Dismes k Cro. Car. 264. 1. 339. Koll 1. 635. c. 4 6 7. l Law of Tithes cap. 8. m Hil. 9 Car. B. R. Cro. par 1. 247. Appeal out of Ireland to the Delegates in England Trin. 8 Car. B. R. Cro. p. 2. n Mich. 3 Car. C. B. Morant and Canding's Case Cro. p. 1. 67. o 14 H. 4. 17. p Owen 35. q Brownl 69. r Blinco vers Marston Cro. par 1. 469. s dict Cas Blinco Mores Rep. t Cro. Eliz 161. u Roll. 655. k. 1. w Cro. Eliz 578. x Crompt Cas Pasch 7 Car. 1. B. R. y Trin. 31 El. B. R. Style Miller Leon. 300. z Hugh Abr. vert Dismes Sec. 2. 5. Harris vers Cotton Brownl
pa. 1. Actions of Debt Vid. The Present State of England pag. 228. Mich. 5 Eliz. Mores Rep. Trin. 18 Jac. B. R. Johnson Parker's Case Roll. Rep. Mich. 8 Jac. C. B. Baxter's Case Trin. 9 Jac. B. R. a Roll. 1â— 644. y. 1256. b Roll. 1. 645. z. 11 12 13. c Roll. 1. 646. 2. 19. d Leon. 2. 93. e Hob. 250. f Pasch 13 Jac. B. R. Roll. Rep. g Batham Lady Gresham's Case Cro. par 1. h Scory and Babeâ—'s Case ibid. i Mich. 29. Eliz. B. R. Adjudged Hugh Abr. k More Case 433. 697. 1280. Leon. 2. Case 30. l Lane 16. l M. 15 Car. B. R. rot 1227. Bar scot and Norton's Case Cro. pa. 3. m Udall Tindall's Case Hutton 77. n Mich. 16 Car. B. R. Cro. par 3. o More 1218. p Pasch 11 Car. B. R. Cro. p. 3. q More 158. r C. B. by the whole Court Brownl 1. pa. 33. p March 8 â— q Mich 6 Jac. C. B. Mildman and Hut on 's Case r Co. 11. 16. s Hob. 42. Benloes 169. t Case Hooper vers Andrews Roll. Rep. u Vid. Hob. 39. w dict Cas Hooper vers Andrews x Pasch 13 Jac. B. R. Case Mascall and Price Roll. Rep. * Pasc 13 Jac. per Coke ibid. y Hob. 1◠†Vid. The grand dispuâ—a before the K. between the Judges of both Laws Trin. 7 Jac. Co. lib. 3. * St. 2 Ed. 6. c. 13. a 5 Jac. C. B. in the Case of Vodus Decimaâ—di Coke 〈…〉 Cases 14 46. b Trin. 10 Jac. C. B. Brown's Case God b 194. c Mich. 14 Jac. C. B. Winter and Childs Case Bulstr 3. par 220 221. d Adjudg'd 15 Car. in Sir Arthur Robinson Case Câ—aytons Rep. 〈◊〉 135. e â—â—â—es 373. 188. f St. 31 H. 8. cap. 8. Vid. Sir Sim. Dâ—gee's Law of Tithes chap. 21. g 18 Eliz. Dyer 349. Co. 2. par 44. h Hill 1 Câ—r B. R. in Dichenson Greenhowe's Case Poph. 157. i Co 2. par Instit 491. k Sr. 21 H. 8. c. 6. l Co. Inst 2. par 491. Vid. Spelm. Judicious Conjecture upon this point of Mortuaries in his Treatise De Sepultura pag. 35. Hinde and the Bishop of Chesters Case Cro. par 3. Trin. 15 Jac. B. R. Lamkin Parson of Tbimblethorpe and Wildâ—'s Case Cro. par 2. Trin. 9 Jac. B. R. 〈◊〉 vers May. Bulstr par 1. a Sharp vers Sharp Nor. Rep. b Vid. Pasc 19 Jac. C. B. Poole Reynold's Case c Cooper and Andrew's Case * Pasch 13 Jac. B. R. Masâ—hal Priceper Co. Roll. Rep. d More Case 1277 Case 1186. e Hil. 6 Jac. C. B. The Vicar of Clares Case f Hob. 43. g Roll. 1. 635. c. 4. 6 7. Noy 108. Sr. 2 Ed. 6. c. 13. h 13 Car. at York Assize Tourâ—btes Cas Clayt Rep. 91. i Tr. 16 Car. B. R. Richardson Caleb's Case Poph. 143. k Ibid. l Hil. 15 Jac. B. R. Hide 's Case Bulstr 1. 171. m Tr. 9 Jac. B. R. Pothill May's Cas Adjudg acc Bulstr ibid. t Hill 14 Car. B. R. Gibs vers Wyborne Jones Rep. u Ibid. w Co. par 1. Inst 14. 2. par 653 654. x Co. super Littl. 14. Crompt Jur. 77. Dyer 7 9. y More Case 1881. z Dr. St. 171. 167. Broo. Prescrip 92. Co. 244. a Co. 2. par Bish of Winchest Case in 8 Ed. 4. 14. by Choke b Adjudg Mich. c Roll. 1. 653. H. 3. d More Case 498 693. e Co. 1. 44 46. f H. l 8 Jac. â— R. Smith's Case g 7 Jac. C. P. in Fleewood's Case h More Case 1280. i More Case 685. k Hil. 7 Jac. B. R. Shipton's Case Adj. l Co. upon Littl. 14. Dyer 7. m Hob. 11. n Hob. 247. o Mich. 2 Jac. B. R. Rot. 346. Case Parry vers Chaunsey Noy Rep. p Hil. 12 Jac. B. R. C. Hooper vers Andrews Rol. Rep. q Ibid. r P. 13 Jac. B. R. C. Maschal Price Rol. Rep. s Co. vouched in one Shibdens case Noy Rep. Sharp vers Sharp t Vid. 35 H. 6. Bro. Preser 3. Mich. 29 Eliz B. R. God b 45. u 15 Car. Sr. A th Robinson's Case vid. Clayr Rep §. 135. w Hill 29 Eliz. B. R. Books Case Godb. 120. x Co. 2. par Bish of Winchesters Case y Case ibid. Dr. Stu. 167. z Dr. St. ibid. a St. 2 Ed. 6. c. 13. b Seld. Hist Decim 409. Roll. 1. 653. H. c Roll. ibid. d Roll. ibid. H. 4. Co. 2. 45. a. c Roll. 1. 649. d. 8 9. vid. Law of Tithes c. 16. f Lev. 23. 22. Dict. Cas Peck Harris Cro p. 1. g dict Cas Bedford Dr. Skinner per Cur. a Mich. 31 Eliz. B. R. Bedingfield Feaks Case Goldesbr 149 150. More Rep. Case 1209. b Pasch 17 Car. C. B. Weeden Harding's C. Vid. Mich. 2 Car. B. R. Poph. Rep. 197. acc Marsh 79. c Mich. 2 Car. B. R. Hob. 197. 50 Ed. 3. 10. b6 Belknap Vid. Co. 2. par Inst 643 644. Seldens Hist Decim 236. Rol. 1. 1. 637 638 639. d Co. 2. par Inst 643. e Plow 470. a. b. f Co. ubi supra g More 762. Plow 470. b. Rol. 1. 640. q. 1. 3 4. Co. 11. 49. a. a Mich. 7 Car. B. R. Mead vers Thuâ—mâ—n Jones Rep. b Hil. 10 Caâ— B. R. Mead Thurman's C. Cro. 1. pa. 285. c Co 11 par in Bowle's C. Co 11. pa. 48. Liford's Case d More Case 1271. e 50 E. 3. 10. f Plow Com. 450. Dr. Stud. 169. g â—t 45 Ed. 3. cap. 3. 11 H. 4. 89. 50 E. 3. 10. h Hil. 43 El. C. B. Rame Pateson's C. Goldes b. 145. i Co. 11. par 81. Bowle's C. vid. Pas 8 Jac. C. B. Dr. Nowman's Case Godb. 175. ac Hil. 2 Jac. B. R. Broâ—k Roger's Case Cro. 1. par 100. k v. Brownl 1. par 33. l 45 Ed. 3. and the Boâ—k 50 Ed. 3. m Plowd 470. Mich. 11 Jac. B. R. Dolley ver Davies Bulstr par 2. n Hill 14 Car. B. R. Gibbs and Wibornes Case Cro. 1. par 378. Pasch 29 El. B. R. Crook Rep. par 1. Ram and Batersons Case Cro. par 1. Cro. par 2. The Lady Waterhouse Bawde's C. Cro. par 1. o Houghton and Princes Case More Rep. * Adjudg Mich. 19 Eliz B. R. Pasch 34 Elliz C. B. Liff and Watts C. p 29 Eliz. B. R. in Busâ—ie the Vicar of Paucas Cas Godb. 63. q Pasch 15 Car. B. R. Marsh 11. r Adjudg 10 Car. in Anderson's Case s Ley. 70. t Pasch 15 Car. B. R. upon Stat. 2 Ed. 6. u Dr. Stu. 177. in 8 Ed. 4. 14. w Vi. Hugh Pars Law cap. 27. p. 235. x Yelv. 79. 2. z Broo. Tresp 125. Co. 2. par Inst 610. a By 3 Judg. 17 Jac. B. R. b More Case 623. c Hob. 168. d Hob. 30â— e Dyer 133. Co. 11. 13. f Adjudg 29 El. Wood's Case St. 2
p. 31. Sect. 12. Several things incident to a Bishop qua talis p. ibid. and Sect. 13. In what respects his Jurisdiction is not meerly local p. 32 33. Sect. 15. The Dignity and Precedency of Bishops here in England p. 35. Sect. 19. Their precedency among themselves p. 13. Sect. 1. Their Capacity of Temporal Jurisdiction restored p. 36. Sect. 20. They were anciently invested per Annulum Baculum p. 24. Sect. 3. and p. 29. Sect. 8. Bishops of London Deans of the Episcopal Colledge p. 38. Sect. 22. Bishopricks in England all Founded by the Kings of England p. 24. Sect. 3. How many iu England p. 12 13. Sect. 1. They were anciently Donative p. 24. Sect. 3. and p. 29. Sect. 8. Their Patronage is in the King ibid. How the Bishopricks of Wales became annexed to the Crown of England p. 28. Sect. 6. They were erected into Baronies by King William the Conqueror p. 35. Sect. 19. Blasphemy what whence so called Threefold the severe Punishments inflicted thereon p. 559 560. Sect. 1 2 3. Bona Notabilia what p. 104. Sect. 6. Bricks whether Tithable p. 390. Broom in what Case Tithable or not p. 390. Buck and Doe not Tithable yet payable for Tithe p. 361. Sect. 20. and p. 380. Sect. 75. Bull or the Popes Bull whence so called p. 341. Sect. 3. Burial in the Body of the Church who hath right to License it p. 139. Sect. 5. Whether any thing payable to the Parson for Burial of him out of his Parish that died in his Parish p. 188. Sect. 5. Burglary to enter a Church by Night with an intent to steal p. 141. Sect. 8. C. CAerlegion in Wales anciently the Metropolis of Britannia Secunda p. 16. Sect. 4. Calves how Tithed and when and what kind of Tithes they yield p. 390. Camois or Sir John de Camois the remarkable Case of his demising his Wife p. 474. Sect. 11. Canon-Law when and how first introduced into England p. 129 c. Sect. 44. Where and by whom it was first read in this Kingdom p. 132. Sect. ibid. Whether it be any part of the Law of England p. 585 586. Sect. 3. p. 131. Sect. 44. Canons anciently made by the Kings of this Realm without the Pope p. 6. Sect. 8. They were ever called the Kings Canons not the Bishops p. ibid. They cannot be made nor oblige the Subject without the Royal assent p. 7. Sect. 11. and p. 99. Sect. 2. They may not be repugnant to the Kings Prerogative nor to the Laws or Customes of the Realm p. ibid. p. 9. Sect. 14. p. 163. Sect. 5. p. 192. Sect. 15. p. 589. Sect. 6. What Canons in force 1 Ed. 6. p 585. Sect. 2. They are the Ecclesiastical Laws of the Land p. 112. Sect 9. Canterbury anciently the Royal City of the Kings of Kent p. 13. Sect. 1. when first declared to be the Metropolitan Church of England Scotland and Ireland p. 20 Sect. 13. Cathedrals whence so called p. 347. Sect. 1. Cathedraticum what and how it differs from Procurations p. 72. § 9. the original thereof ib. Cattel in what cases tythable or not and the Herbage thereof p. 390 391. p. 366. Sect. 33. p. 367. § 35. whether young Cattel are tythable ib. p. 370 371. § 43. whether the Herbage of Barren Cattel be tythable p. 373. § 46. Caveat entered against an Institution to a Benefice whether it makes void such Institution made after the entring of the Caveat p. 276. § 34. p. 280. § 18 whether a Caveat entred in the life time of an Incumbent be void ib. Cautione admittenda what that Writ imports and the effect thereof in Law p. 648. § 10. Certificate of the Bishop requisite in a Plea of Bastardy p. 484. § 13. in what Case traversable p. 88. § 12. Cession what p. 286. § 9. where Cognizable p. 122. § 11. Chalk whether tythable p. 391. Chancel by whom to be repaired p. 143. § 10. p. 175. § 4. In whom the Freehold thereof 〈◊〉 p. 150. § 22. Chancellor of a Diocese a description of his Office p. 81. § 1. What matters cognizable by him p. 85. § 10. The original and use of that Office p. 81 82. § 2. What the Canons enjoyn concerning such p. ibid. § 3. Why called the Bishops Vicar General p. 81. § 1. Whether a Divine not experienced in the Civil and Canons Laws may be a Chancellor p. 82 83. § 4. Chaplains whether the King Queen Prince and Children of the Blood Royal may retain as many as they please p. 294. § 3. How many the Archbishop of Canterbury may retain ibid p. 21. § 13. and p. 32. § 13. How many retainable by a Bishop ib. How many by a Duke Marquess Earl and other persons of honour p. 294. Sect. 3. Chappel whence that word p. 145 146. Sect. 15. How many kinds thereof ibid. What a Chappel of ease and what a Free Chappel is and by whom visitable Sect. ibid. The Imperial Law touching the building of Chappels p. 146. Sect. 17. Chapter what p. 56. Sect. 8 c. The difference between Capitulum and Conventus p. 58. Sect. 9. Charles Martell the first that violated the Church in point of Tithes p. 354. Sect. 7. Charter of William the Conquerour touching Consistories p. 84. Of King John touching the Election of Bishops p. 183. Sect. 10. Of King H. 8 touching Pentecostals p. 74. Chaunter and Chauntry what p. 392 c. Sect. 6. Certain differences in Law touching Chauntries p. 331. Sect. 8. Cheâ—se in what Case to be Tithed or not p. 391. Cherry-Trees where adjudged Timber and Tithe-free p. 392. Chicken how Tithable or not p. 392. Child how reputed legitimate or not as to the time of it's Birth in computation from the time of its conception p. 484. Sect. 12. Chorepiscopi what p. 30. Sect. 11. Christmas-day whether Arrests may be made thereon p. 115. Sect. 12. Church none such in Law until Consecration p. 142. Sect. 9. Anciently a Sanctuary p. 141. s 8. Threefold p. 136. s 1. Church-Lands prohibited by the Imperial Law from being alienated p. 136. s 2. In whom the Freehold of the Church and Church-yard is p. 137. s 3. Churchwardens by whom Eligible and wherein their Office consists p. 160 c. Sect. 1. p. 162. s 4 5. p. 168. s 21. p. 166. s 14. Whether they are a Corporation in Law p. 162 163. s 5. p. 164. s 11. and whether as such they may take Lands to the use of the Church p. 167. s 17. p. 168. s 22. What power they have touching Seats in the Church p. 140 141. s 7. What Actions may lie for or against them p. 161. s 2. p. 163. s 7 8. p. 167. s 18. p. 168. s 20. p. 186 187. s 3. Before whom they are to make their Account p. 161. s 1. p. 166. s 16. p. 167. s 19. Whether the New Church-wardens may have Action for Trespass done in their Predecessors time p. 162. s
The causes thereof p. 206 207. Sect. 2. Where cognizable p. 122. Sect. 21. Whether a Bar to Tithes due before p. 398. Whether the Church be void pending the Appeal from a Sentence of Deprivation p. 314. Sect. 17. Delegates-Court how Constituted p. 117. Sect. 13. Whether they may Excommunicate or grant Letters of Administration p. ibid. Dilapidation what p. 173. Sect. 1 2 3. The remedies in Law against it and how many ways it may happen ibid. Whether it be a sufficient cause of Deprivation p. 175. Sect. 5 9. and p. 315. Sect. 19. Diocess whence that word derived p. 101. Sect. 3. What it properly signifies p. 275. Sect. 8. Discharge of Tithes how many ways it may be p. 398. In what Cases it may be or not p. 358. Sect. 12. p. 368. Sect. 38. Dispensation the true definition thereof p. 112. Sect. 9. By whom Dispensations may be granted and in what Cases p. 107 c. Sect. 8. Anciently had from the Court of Rome ibid. It may be without the word Dispensamus p. 302. Sect. 18. They are grantable by the King qua talis p. 5. Sect. 7. p. 109. Sect. 8. The granting thereof is eminently in the Crown p. 6. Sect. 9. The Archbishop of Canterbury may be Statute grant them ibid. p. 19. Sect. 11. The difference between such granted by the Pope formerly and those granted by the King now p. 293. Sect. 2. In what Case grantable by the Guardian of the Spiritualties p. 40. Sect. 3. What remedy in Law in Case he refuse so to do ibid. Divorce what 493. Sect. 1. The Causes thereof ibid. Whether if for Adultery it dissolves the Marriage à vinculo p. 495. Sect. 3 c. Donative Churches what p. 202. Sect. 16. The Original thereof p. ibid. By whom visitable p. 34. Sect. 18. The Law concerning Donatives p. 262. Sect. 18. How they cease to be such and become Presentative p. 201. Sect. 16. and p. 263. Sect. 21. Whether a Donative in the Kings gift may be with Cure of Souls p. 218. Sect. 23. Dotards whether Tithable p. 405. Doves in a Dove-house what Tithes they pay p. ibid. Druids their Idol-Temples when first abolished in England p. 16. Sect. 4. Drunkard whether actionable to call one so p. 516. Sect. 3. p. 521. Sect. 14. Dubritius Archbishop of Carlegion in Wales p. 17. Sect. 6. Duplex Querela what p. 275. Sect. 8. E. ECclesia whence that word derived p. 136. Sect. 1. Ecclesiastical Laws of England the Antiquity thereof p. 129 c. Sect. 44. Edgar King his Zeal for the Church in his Oration to the Clergy of England p. 97. Sect. 1. Eggs how when and in what Case Tithable p. 405. Election of Bishops how and by whom to be made p. 43. Sect. 2. Eleutherius Pope what style be gave K. Lucius p. 4. Sect. 4. p. 111. s 8. Elopement what it signifies p. 508. Sect. 13. Episcopal Authority derived from the Crown p. 30. Sect. 10. Episcopal Jurisdiction endeavoured to be taken away p. 36 37. Sect. 2. Episcopocide in a Clerk Petty Treason p. 35. Sect. 19. Estovers burnt in a house whether Tithable p. 372. Sect. 46. p. 392. Ethelbert King of Kent by whom Canterbury was given to St. Austin for his See p. 13. Sect. 1. p. 17. Sect. 5. Whether he built St. Pauls Church in London p. 17. Sect. 7. Ethelwolph Son and Successor to Egbert the first sole King of England he was Bishop of Winchester p. 36. Sect. 19. And the first that enriched the Church of England with Tithes p. 348. Sect. 1. Euginus whether he were the first that styled himself Pope the first that consecrated Churches and the first that decreed Godfathers and Godmothers in Baptism p. 49. Sect. 7. Examination when and by whom to be performed p. 270 Sect. 1 3. Excommunication what p. 624. Sect. 1 2. Twofold ibid. What intended by Excommunication ipso facto p. 626. Sect. 4. What the causes in Law of That Excommunication p. 628. Sect. 8. In what manner Excommunication is to be pronounced p. 626. Sect. 6. By whom it is to be certified and how p. 635. Sect. 18. Whether the Ordinary may take Bond of an Excommunicate for his submission in order to absolution p. 637. s 25. whether Excommunication in a Patron be sufficient cause for a Bishop to refuse the Clerk presented by such Patron p. 266. Sect. 32. F. FAculty or Court of Faculties or Faculty Office what p. 107. Sect. 8. The Archbishop of Canterbury impower'd by the Statute to grant Faculties ibid. and p. 19. Sect. 11. The force and efficacy thereof to Commendams or two Benefices p. 107 109 110. Sect. 8. The difference between a Faculty to Take and a Faculty to Retain a Benefice p. 110. Sect. 8. Fallow-grounds whether Tithable p. 405. Fees for Probate of Testaments what due by Statute p. 105 106. Sect. 6. Fâ—nny-Lands drain'd whether they pay Tithes presently p. 406. Ferae naturae Creatures of that kind whether Tithable p. 405. First-fruits by and to whom payable p. 337. Sect. 2. vid. Annates Fith taken in the Sea or in a River Pond or Piscary whether Tithable and how p. 406. and p. 367. Sect. 36. p. 379. Sect. 68. p. 375. Sect. 53. Flamins how many anciently in England p. 16. Sect. 4. Flax what Tithes it pays and when p. 407. Forest-Lands whether Tithable or not and by whom p. 407 408. Not scituate in any Parish to whom the Tithes shall be paid p. 408. Whether Priviledg'd from Tithes whilst in the Kings hands otherwise in the Subjects p. 369. Sect. 41. Whether they are Priviledged from Tithes if in the hands of the Kings Patentee or Grantee p. 399. 401. Fowl taken in what Case Tithable or not p. 408. Fraud in setting forth Tithes whether treble dammages in that Case p. 380. Sect. 72. p. 381. Sect. 76. Freehold f the Church or Chancel in whom it is p. 137. Sect. 3. p. 83. Sect. 4. p. 139. Sect. 5. p. 142. Sect. 9. p. 150. Sect. 22. p. 151. Sect. 25. p. 155. Sect. 38. Frigidity in the Man pleaded by the Woman how the Civil Law proceeds thereon p. 493. Sect. 1. Fruit-Trees what Tithes they pay and when p. 408. Fuise whether Tithable p. ibid. G. GArba or Decima Garbarum what it signifies p. 381. Sect. 78. Gardens how Tithable p. 409. p. 371. Sect. 43. Geoffry Plantaginet Son to King H. 2. was Bishop of Lincolne p. 36. Sect. 19. Glass-windows Painted in the Isle of a Chappel if pulled down whether Actionable p. 138. Sect. 5. Gleab what p. 409. The Law concerning the Tithes thereof ibid. p. 410. Gleab of a Parsonage Impropriate and Leased whether Tithable ibid. p. 368. sect 38. Whether Gleab in Lease pays Tithe p. 362 363. s 26. Whether the Freehold of the Gleab during a Vacancy be in the Patron or not p. 183. s 9. Gleab manured and sowed by an Incumbent that dies before Harvest who shall have the Corn p. 318. s 3. Godfathers
p. 106. s 6. He hath Curam Curarum p. 32. s 14. Organs in a Church to whom they belong p. 167. s 18. if taken away where the Action lies p. 161. s 2. Ornaments of the Church at whose charge to be provided and how the same shall be charged p. 137. sect 4. p. 152. s 29. p. 154. s â—4 P PAgans the strange Punishments inflicted by them on Adulterers p. 470. Sect. 4. Pallium Episcopale a description thereof p. 23. s 2. Pander whether to call one so be Actionable p. 524. s 21. Pannagium what that word signifies p. 383. Pardon whether it may extend to prevent a Deprivation p. 312. s 15. Whether a General Pardon shall barr a Suit in the Ecclesiastical Court for Slander p. 121. s 19. In what case it may barr Costs of Suit p. 116. s 12. Pâ—rk disparked how Tithable p. 361. sect 20 21. p. 364 365. s 31. p. 427 428. How to be Tithed if converted into Tillage p. 361. s 20. p. 380. s 75. Parish the various acceptation of that word p. 355 356. sect 8. By whom Parishes were first divided p. 72. s 8 9. Parochial Bounds where Cognizable p. 126. s 37. p. 128. s 28. p 125. s 31. p. 157. s 40. p. 153. s 31. p. 380. s 74. Being Controverted between Spiritual persons are Cognizable in the Ecclesiastical Court p. 123. s 27. Otherwise at the Common Law p. ibid. s 28. p. 124. s 30. p. 126. s 37. Parish-Clerk by whom to be chosen p. 166. s 12. p. 192. s 15. Parson who properly such p. 185 186. s 1. He hath a double Capacity p. 193. s 16. Parson Imparsonee what p. 186. s 2. How he ought to be qualified to be a Parson p. 187. s 4. Requisites in Law for that Function ibid. What his Rights are p. 186. s 3. The difference between Parson Pastor Rector Vicar and Curate p. 186. s 1. Parsonage Church and Rectory are terms Synonymous p. 188. sect 6. Patridges and Pheasants though not Tithable yet paiable in lieu of Tithes p. 361. sect 20. What Tithes tame Patridges shall pay p. 428. Pasture the Law in reference to the Tithes thereof p. 428 429. Patria obedientiae and Patriae consuetudinariae the difference between them p. 130. s 44. Patriarch what p. 20. s 13. A Style or Title anciently given to the Archbishop of Canterbury p. ibid. Patron what he is and why so called p. 178. sect 1. p. 205. s 1. Who is properly the Patron of a Vicarage p. 199. s 9. Whether a Patron hath any thing to do in the Church during a Plenarty p. 191. s 12. His Consent requisite to Commandams Vnions and Appropriation of Churches p. 229. s 8. Paul or St. Paul whether he Preach'd here in England p. 16. Sect. 4. St. Pauls Church London by whom first built p. 17. Sect. 7. Paulinus Archbishop of York p. 14. Sect. 2. Pease in what Case not Tithable p. 429. Pelagius a Monk of Bangor his refusal to appear at Rome upon the Popes Summons p. 111. Sect. 8. Pelagian Heresie when this Kingdom first infected therewith and by whom suppressed p. 16. Sect. 5. Peculiars or the Court of Peculiars what it was p. 119. Sect. 16. How many Peculiars in the Province of Canterbury ibid. Pelts or Fells of Sheep dying of the Rot whether Tithable p. 429. Pensions suable in the Ecclesiastical Court p. 127. Sect. 41. p. 188. Sect. 6. p. 198. Sect. 5. p. 376. Sect. 57. Pentecostals what and whence so called p 73 74. Sect. 10. Peters Church in Cornhil London once the Cathedral of a Diocess p. 17. Sect. 7. By whom founded ibid. Peterpence what The Original thereof and why payed to Rome p. 73 74. Sect. 10. p. 112. Sect. 8. p. 356. Sect. 9. The Conquerors Law concerning the same p. 73. Sect. 10. Anciently taken from the Pope and given to the King p. 100. Sect. 2. Pews in the Body of the Church at whose disposal they are p. 137. Sect. 3. p. 156. Sect. 38. p. 158. Sect. ult vid. Seats Pheasants of what kind are Tithable p. 430. Though properly not Tithable yet as a Modus may be paid for Tithes p. 380. Sect. 75. Pictures in Church-windowes if pulled down whether Actionable p. 138. Sect. 5. Pigeons in what Case Tithable or not p. 430. Spent in the Owners House not Tithable p. 368. Sect. 37. p. 375. Sect. 53. Otherwise if sold ibid. Felony to steal them out of a Dove-house ibid. vid. Doves Pigs how Tithable p. 430. Pilchards and other Sea Fish whether Tithable and how p. 379 Sect. 68. Pimp whether and where Actionable to call one so p. 521. Sect. 16. Pits of Stone Lime c. whether Tithable p. 430. Plants transplanted whether Tithable p. 431. Plato 's Law concerning Adulterers p. 473. Sect. 9. Plurality what p. 292. Sect. 1. Who may grant or receive Pluralities p. 294. sect 3. Qualifications in Law touching Dispensations for Pluralities p. 295. Sect. 4. Whether the taking of a Parsonage with a Vicarage endowed amounts to a Plurality within the intent of the Statute p. 296. sect 5. The Text of Canon Law against Pluralities p. 300. sect 15. Pope when his usurpation in England first began p. 97. Sect. 1. When and by whom here first abrogated p. 18. Sect. 8. What his power was in granting Dispensations p. 5. Sect. 7. Postulation what p. 49. Sect. 8. Prebends what and why so called p. 35. Sect. 19. Prerogative Court of Canterbury the Jurisdiction thereof p. 104. Sect. 6. Prescription p. 431. to 436. The Law thereof in reference to Tithes ibid. and p. 358. Sect. 12. In what Court cognizable p. 367. Sect. 29. p. 125. Sect. 33. In what Case a Parson prescribing for Tithes may sue on that Prescription in the Ecclesiastical Court ibid. Prescription meerly Spiritual Cognizable in that Court p. 156. Sect. 39. Prescription to a Seat in a Church or to Priority in that Seat whether cognizable in the Temporal Court p. 138. Sect. 5. p. 140. Sect. 7. p. 142. Sect. 9. p. 149. Sect. 21. p. 155. Sect. 38. p. 147. Sect. 18. p. 151. Sect. 25. Whether a Prescription to Ecclesiastical things be Cognizable in the Ecclesiastical Court p. 153. Sect. 33. Prescription pleaded by a Parson against the first Endowment to the Vicar whether allowable p. 375. Sect. 54. Prescription de non decimando not denied to a Spiritual person p. 399. The difference between the Civil and Common Law in point of Prescriptions p. 129. Sect. 43. Praemonstracenses how discharged of Tithes p. 402. Presentation to a Benefice what p. 254. Sect. 4. Where the Right of Presentation is cognizable p. 256. Sect. 6. What the Law touching Presentation is in case of Copareeners Joynt-Tenants and Tenants in Common p. ibid. Sect. 7. How the Presentation is to be in case of Coheirs p. 255. Sect. 4. Whether a Presentation be revocable before Institution p. 258 259 Sect. 9 10. What Presentation shall serve for a Turn p. 262
possession p. 272. Sect. 5. Three Writs at Common Law against an Usurper and what they are p. 205. Sect. 1. W WAges of Servants whether Tithable p. 457. Wall of the Church-yard by whom to be repaired p. 144. Sect. 11. Wales when first subject to the Archbishoprick of Canterbury p. 17. Sect. 6. Waste Pastures in what case Tithable or not p. 457. Wax or Bees-Wax how to be Tithed p. 457. Way obstructed for carrying of Tithes Cognizable in the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction p. 382. Sect. 82. vid. p. 394. Weapons drawn in the Church or Church-yard how punished p. 139. Sect. 6. Indictments thereon discharged and why p. 149. Sect. 22. p. 155. sect 37. Weild or Woad for Diers to whom the Tithe of that Dying Plant belongs whether as Great Tithe to the Parson or as Small Tithe to the Vicar p. 366. sect 32. p. 381. s 77. p. 457 458. westminster-Westminster-Abbey by whom Founded p. 328. sect 5. When the Revenues thereof were first vested in a Dean and Chapter of the Collegiate Church thereof p. 15. s 3. How it became Originally the place of Consecration and Coronation of the Kings of England p. 6. Sect. 8. Whitson-Farthings what and when paid p. 73. Sect. 10. Whore whether Actionable and where to call one so p. 519. Sect. 9. Willows whether Tithable p. 457. Witness one single Witness disallowed in the Ecclesiastical Court for sufficient proof whether Prohibition lies in that case p. 113 114. Sect. 11. p. 115. Sect. 12. p. 116. Sect. 12. p. 123. Sect. 26. p. 128. Sect. 43. Witch or the Son of a Witch whether those words are Actionable p. 524. Sect. 24. Wolsey Cardinal impower'd by the Popes Bull to retain the Archbishoprick of York and the Abbey of St. Albans in Commendam p. 111. Sect. 8. Wolstan Bishop of Worcester his Resolute Answer to King William the Conquerour p. 97. Sect. 1. Wood the Law in reference to the Tithe thereof p. 458 to 462. Computed among the Predial and Great Tithes by whom payable whether by the Buyer or the Seller whether due for Fuel spent in the Parishioners house p. ibid. In what sense it may be either Great or Small Tithes p. 365 366. Sect. 32. Whether Wood Tithable at the Common Law p. 372. Sect. 46. Wood for Hedging and Firing whether Tithable p. 369 370. Sect. 42. In what case the Vicar may have the Tithe thereof p. 381. sect 79. Wool the Law in reference to the Tithes thereof p. 198. sect 3. p. 359. sect 16. p. 366. sect 32. Of Sheep pastured in divers Parishes p. 462 c. Of Rotten Sheep whether Tithable p. 359. sect 15. Worcester-Church anciently a Priory p. 74. sect 10. Words of Contention in the Church or Church-yard how punished p. 139. sect 6. Writ of Right of Advowson for whom it lies p. 214 215. sect 17. The Writ De Haeretico Comburendo when taken away and abolished p. ult sect ult Y YOrk the Original of that Metropolitan See p. 14. sect 2. It anciently had a Metropolitan Jurisdiction over all the Bishops in Scotland p. 18. sect 9. ERRATA PAg. 25. lin 25. read Potestatem p. 35. l. 2. Archidiaconum p. 200. l. 37. Provenues p. 203. l. 7. Vicaria p. 205. l. 5. be with the Cure p. 209. l. 3. An. 1505 p. 285. l. 17. to his Father by the true p. 293. l. 31. too late p. 403. l. 38. Mepham's Canon p. 448. l. 23. to the Parson p. 470. l. ult Adulterum p. 471. l. 7. Hoel Dha p. 439. l. 15. Cognatio p. 497. l. 11. Adulterous Wife p. 501. l. 7. Thore p. 503. l. 6. Viro p. 530. l. 40. Crown p. 543. l. 18. Pardon l. 40. Doctors Advertisement THE ORPHANS LEGACY or a Testamentary Abridgment in Three parts viz. 1. Of Last Wills and Testaments 2. Of Executors and Administrators 3. Of Legacies and Devises Where the most material Points of Law relating to that subject are succinctly Treated as well according to the Common and Temporal as Ecclesiastical and Civil Laws of this Realm Illustrated with a great variety of select Cases in the Law of both Professions as well delightful in the Theory as useful for the practice of all such as study the one or are either active or passive in the other By the Author
253. Da. 1. Dean and Charter Fernes 46. Praemuni e 90. q Speed 428. b. r Idem 453. s Matth. Paris t Dr. Field 148. v Vid. St. 25 H. 8. 20. Sec. 3. Rastall vid. Co. par 12. Rep. 59. 2â— w Mich. 22 Jac. Latch Rep. 246. x F. N. B. â— y Matt. Pariâ— fo 454. de An. 1236. z Stat. 1 Ed. 6. 2. a Ibid. b Ibid. Bishops have Precedency of all Temporal Barons under Vicounts c 41 Ed. 3. 6. 46 Ed. 3. 22. d F. N. B. acc e 38 E. 3. 30. Pars Law cap. 1. f St. 17 Ed. 2. 14. g Case of the Dean and Chapter of Norwich Co. Rep. par 3. h Dyer 350. i Evans and Ascough's Case Luch Rep. k Trin. 8. Car. B. R. Case Walker vers Lambe Jones Rep. l Antiq. Bâ—iâ— fo 22. Heyl. Hist Eccles pag. 294. m Hill 8 Car. B. R. Rot. 454 Coâ—t vers Bishop of St. Davids alios Cro. Rep. n Linw. de jure presbyt verb. Oblatioris o Colt Glover vers Bp. of Coventry Lâ—chfield Hob. Rep. p 4 H. 7. 13. 10 H. 7. 18. 7 E. 4. 12. Lâ—tt ad Colleg. q Case Bâ—oâ—hly vers Baily Hob. Rep. r Lord Stanhop's Case vers Bishop of Lincoln al. * W. 2 cap. 5. s Sr. W. Elvis vers Archbishop of York and others Hâ—b Rep. t Stat. 21 H. 8. c. 13. u Vid. Broc hoc tit c 27 Eliz. C B. in Carter Crofts Case Leon. 33. Pasch 21 Jac. C. B. in Knâ—lly's and Dobbinâ— Case 342. Leon. d Pasch 17 Jac. Rot. 877. Sr. Will. Elvis vers Archbishop of York and others in Hob. Rep. e Brown's Case Latch Rep. * Brownl p. â— Cases in Law f Davis 1. Commend 72. b. g D. 10 El. 273. h 20 H. 6. 46. i Co. 10. Sutton's Hosp 31. k Davis 1. Proxies 4. l Davis 1. D. C. de Ferns 46. temps E. 6. Br. praemunire 21. m Davis 1. 46. F. N. B. 42. a. n D. 1. 46. o Co. 10. Suttons 31. Act. 15 16. 2. Coke 15. De Spelm. Concil p. 238. Bâ—ownl Rep. par 1. Mich. 10 Jac. Cases in Law c. Selden lib. 2. de Synedrits Vid. Grat. Dist c. Cum ad veâ—um Dr. Heylin Hist Eccl. de Temp. Ed 6. p. 51 52. Ibid. p 54 55. Mich. 17 Jac. Br. Revan O Brian and others and Knivans case Cro. par 2. Mich. 3 Car. C. B. Owen and Tho. Ap Ree's Case Cro. par 3. a Vid. St. 25 H. 8. c. 21. 13 Eliz. c. 12. b Co. 1. par Inâ—tit acc c 18 Eliz. Dyer 35â— * Case Evans and Ascough Latch Repâ— d Contra 31 H. 6. 10. admit Dub. 17 E. 3. 23. b. where it is said per Stouâ— that in the time of R. 1. and ever before the Metropolitan was Guardian till the time of H 3 c. Roll. Abr. ver Prerogative lit 5. e Râ—l Abr. ibid. Mich. 13 Jac. B. R. Rot. 165. Grange vers Denny Bulstr Rep. f 17 E. 3. 23. g 2 E. 1. Rot. Pat. Memb 5. h 41 Ass 29. adjudged i 27 E. 1 Rot Clauso Memb. 11. Dorso k 23 E. 1. Rot. Clauso Memb. 4. l Brâ—wnl Rep. pâ— 1. Mâ—ch 1â—â— Jac. Cases in Law c. a F. N. B. 169. Term. Leg. b Ibid. B. 170 B C c. c 20 Ed. 3. Fitz. tit Brief 25. d Trin. 11 Jac. C. B. in Colt and the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield Hob. Rep. Evans and Ascoughâ— Case Lâ—tch Rep. e Vid. Stat. â— 25 H. 8. cap. 20. f 18 Eliz. Dyer 350. g 22 E. 3. 13. h 41 E. 3. 6. 46 E. 3. 22. Otâ—oâ—on de Confirm Epist cap unic i Weast Symb. par 1. lib. 2. Sect. 300. F. N. B fo 169. b. 226. 〈◊〉 271. d. 162 〈◊〉 Litt. lib. 3. c. â—â— k Cap. ne pro defectâ— de Elect. c. 2. 〈◊〉 concess Prâ—â—bend in Sect. 1. de Regia Nâ—mâ—na Pet. Rebuss Respons 14. l Gloss D D. in dict cap. 2. de concess Praebendâ— m Rebuâ—â— ubi supr a â— 3. si quando C. de Bon. vac 24. q. 1. c. Pudenda Jul. Patric in Version Nov. 6. b dict Nov. 6. c Exod. 29. 9. d 1 King 19. 15 16. 1 King 1. 39. 1 Sam. 16. 12. Psal 89. 20. e Exod. 29. 20. f Lev. 8. 12. Exod. 29. 7. Psal 133. 2. Celichyth g Spelm. Consil Synod Celichyth Can. 2. h Auth. de Monach. §. illud igitur Coll. 1. vid. Novell 123 131. i Pontificale pag. 281. per Clement 8. An. 5565. k Jus Graec. Lat. To. 1. Synod 1. 232 233 c. l 21 H. 6. 3. by Markham m Plat. Berg. Chrisp Isaacs Sat. Ephem n Case Evans Ascough Latch Rep. o Sum. Rosell Postulation ut Si quis Panorm 2. p. 100 p in dict Case Evans Ascough a 33 L. 3. Ayd del Roy 03. per Therp b Ibid. per Fif c D. to El. 273 37 d Ibid. e 14 H 8. 3 b. f 17 E. 3. 40. b. per â—arning g 40 Ea. 23. Coke 3. Rep. 75. b. h 17 E. 4. 76. 17 Ass pl. 29. 18 E. 3. 36. F. N. B. 195. Coke 3. Dean and Chapter of Norwich Case 40 41 Eliz. i Lind w. pro Const tit de Constit verb. per Decanos Rurales k Decretal Ext. de Offic. Archi. Dean Rurals what Decani Rurales sunt Decans Temporales ad aliquid Ministerium sub Episcepo vel Archicpiscopo exercendum Constituti Lindw de Const c. 1. Gloss in verb. Decan Rural * Lindw ib. They were anciently called Testes Synedales l Idem de Jadic ver Decan Rural m C. de Decanis l. 12. per totum n Extra de Censib c. cum Apostolus o Extr. de App. c. dilectis filiis p Co. par 3. Case Dean Chap. of Norwich q Cab. Glovers Cise vers the Bishop of Coventry and Lâ—â—field Hob. Rep. r Vid. 〈◊〉 E. 4 〈…〉 18. 21 〈◊〉 s Day 's Case vers Savage Hob. Rep. t Arundel's Case Hob. Rep. u Case Evans and Ascough Latch Rep. x Dict. Case Evans Ascough y Case Evans vers Ase in primo loca Latch Rep. z Lindw ubi supra a Gloss ib. b Co. 3. par Case of the D. and Chapter of Norwich c Hugh's Pars Law cap. 3. d Co. 12. 71. a. b. Dyer 282. p. 26. Sr. Sim. Degg's Law cap. 5. Pars Counsellor par 1. c. 10. e Temp. R â— Fitz. tit Grnats 104. Hugh's Pars More 's Rep. 3 4 Ma. Eaton-Colledg Case More ibid. Pasch 6 Eliz. More ibid. The Lord North's Case Mores Rep. Philip a Fifth Son of Lewis the Gress K. of France disdained not to be an Archdeacon in 〈◊〉 Paul AEmâ—l Tilius a Sum. ibid. b Can. Legiâ—â— 93. Dist There are 60. Archdeacons in England Clergy from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Portio they being in a peculiar sense aâ— the Lords Portion c 17 Ed. 3. 23. Coo.
par 5 Cawdry's Case d 8 H. 6. 3. per Chauntrâ—â— The Archdeaconry â—â— Richmond iâ— by Prescription e 〈◊〉 2â— Jac. B. R Castrell and Jones Case f 24 H. 8. c. 11. Co. Inst par 4. cap. 74. g Tim. 31 Eliz. C. B. Smallwood vers Bishop of Lichfield Leon. Rep. h Sir Timothy Hutton's Case C. B. Hob. Rep. i Pasch 23 Eliz. C. B. Adjudg Godb. 23. vid. F N. B. 47. 26 H. 8. 3. by Knightly k Pasch 31 Eliz. B. R. Vnderhill and Savage's Case Leon. Rep. l St. 21 H. 8. 13. m Can. 120 121. Q Q. Vallens Paratis de Censib §. 3. a Giss fo 226. b. vid. Nome Lex ver Procurat b Stephens de Procurat Edit 1661. Extr. de Censib c. cum Apostolus Vid. Hist Disc of Procurationt p. 25 26. P. ubi supr c. c Ex Record Primit 26 H. 8. vid. Dyer fo 273. b. Claus Roâ— 31 E. 1. M. 15. dors vid. Nomo Lexicon ubi supr Hist Tripart l. 7. so 452. Ibid. fo 392. Pag. 78. Rastall in Pensions c. Dict. Hist Dis of Procurations p. 99. Antiq. Eccles Bâ—iâ— p. 28 64. Dict. Hist Discourse of Procurat p. 116. Ibid. Dr. Câ—sen Polit. Eccles Angl. tab 8. Trin. 2 Jac. in the Exchequer â—f Ireland Enter le Roy Sr. Ambr. Forth Dr. of Law Davis Rep. Stat. 32 H. 8. cap. 15. a Edâ—â— 1603. Can. â—19 120 121. 123 â—24 127. Edit 1562. b Hill 2 Car. C. B. Sutton's Case Cro. Rep. Vid. dict Case in Latch Rep. Vid. Litt. Sect. 133. 136. 648. 24 H. 4. c. 12. c Vid. Litt. ibid. Vid. Co. Inst p. 4. fol. 338. d Câ—wel Interp verb. Consistory e Co. Instit par 4. cap. 53. fo 259. cap. 74. fo 338. f Pro Decano Capitulo Ecclesiae â—eat Mariae de Lincoln g This Remigius was the first Bishop of Lincoln thâ— See being removed from Dorchester to Lincoln h In Turno ita Co. ubi sup i This is not intended of the Hundâ—ed Court but that in these times the Sheriff did hâ—ld his Tournâ— per Hâ—â—dreda Ita Co. ubi sâ—pr vid. Mag. Chart. cap 35. Exposiâ— Co. thereon k Co. Instit 4 par cap. 53. fo 260. l Vid. Seld. Hist of Tithes p. 413 414. m Westm 2. An. 13 Ed. 1. cap. 19. 31 Ed. 3. c. 1â— 21 H. 8. cap. 5. n Co. Iâ—st par 3. c. 68. Vid. 2 R. 2. Rot. Parl. nu 46. o Co. Inst par 3. cap. 97. Râ—yner and Parkers Case More' s Rep. Poel and Godfrey's Case More 's Rep. p Hill 7. Car. rot 1147. B. R. Carlion vers Mill. Cro. Rep. q Can. 127. r Burye's Case Noy Rep. s Vid. Noy Rep. post Case Coke vers Wall t The Prebend of Hateberlies Case Noy Rep. Whether the Office of a Commissary may be granted to a Lay-person u Trin. 7 Car. rot â—74 Walâ—er vers Sir J. Lambe Cro. Rep. Pasch 3 Car. B R. Dr. Suton's Case in Nâ—y's Rep. Hill 1610. 8 Jac. B. R. Robotham vers Trevor Brownl Rep. pa. 2. Pasch 3 Car. B. R. Chancellor of Gloucester's Case Resolved per Curiaâ— and Prohibition denied Hill 8. Jac. Dr. Trevor's Case Coke lib. 12. Co. ibid. Roll's Abridg. verb. Prerogative lit L. In the Case of Praemunire Davis Rep. Hist Forâ—alensis M. S. in Archiv Rob. Cotton Eq. Aur. Convocation a Convocando by the King 's Writ 8 H. 6. cap. 1â— Coke par 4. Inst cap. 74. Ibid. 1 Eliz. cap. 1. Co. ubi supr In the Case of a Praemunire Davis Rep. fo 91. So called in Stat. 25 H. 8. c. 19. a Stat. 24 H. 8. c. 12. b Co. Inst par 4. §. Court of Arches 23 H 8. cap. 9. Mich. 6 Jac. C. B. Porter and Rochesters Case Co. lib. 13. ult Case Porter and Rochester Co. 〈◊〉 supr c Cowel Interpr verb. Arches d Temp. Ed. 1. An. 1295. e An. 3 Eliz. 1583. f Edit Lambeth 6 Maii Ap. 573. Consecra 14. g Vid. dict Stat. M. S. h Antiq. Brit. 6 H. 6. An. 1435. i 25 H. 8. 19. k Hill 7 E. 1. coram Rege Rot. 8. Pasch 12 E. 1. in Banco Essex Guliel de Moâ—â—us maâ—i Clericus c. Vid. Dyer 7 Eliz. 241. Ant. Brit. fo 201. l M. S. Stat. Cur de Arcub §. de numero Advocat in final Conclus Statut. m Dict. Stat. §. Item Procuratores Vid. Provinc Const Lindw De Offic. Jud. Ord. cap. Sâ—atuimus gloss verb. Ad Pauperes Co. Inst par 4. cap. 74. Pigot and Gascoin's Case Brownl Rep. par 1. Cases in Law c. Stat. 23 H. 8. cap. 9. Trin. 8 Jac. Brown l. p. 2. Mich. 20 Jac. in Cam. Stellat Sr. Jo. Bennet's Case Co. Inst par 3. cap. 69. n Co. Inst 4. par cap. 74. Vid. Hist de Antiq. Eccles Britan. Vid. Vaugh. Rep. fo 25. o Co. par 4. Inst cap. 74. p Trin. 44 Eliz. C. B. Rot. 1525. lib. 4. fo 117. Lib. pl. Co. p. 512 513. Pascl 9 Jâ—c C. B. en Ireland le Case de Commenda in Davis Rep. 25 Ed. 1. 16 R. 2. 38 Ed. 3 c. 1. 27 Ed. 3. c. 1. 25 Ed. 3. Davis Rep. iâ— the case of Praemunire fo 87. Ibid. fo 88. q Hill 22 â— c. B. R. Rot. 2164. Evans and Riffin vers Aâ—kwith Jones Rep. r Cokes Rep. par 11. Jones ibid. s Dr. Standish's Case Relw. Rep. t Vid. Cawdry's Case Co. Rep. par 5. 55. and Grendon's Case Plow Com. u Pasch 4 Car. C. B. Warner against â—arret Hetley's Rep. x Gammon 's Case Hetley's Rep. y 〈◊〉 Case Hetley's Rep. z Giles against 〈◊〉 Hetley 's Rep. a Ibid. Hetley's Rep. Vid the Stat. 24 E. 1. b Chadron against Harris Noy 's Rep. c Sparrow against Norfolk Noy 's Rep. d Hollmasts Case Noy's Rep. e Noy's Rep. post Dr. Cademan's Case vers Grendan f Palmer vers Warner Noy's Rep. g Post Sâ—adding's Case in Noy's Rep. h H. 10 Jac. B. per Coke i Rol. Abridg verb. Prerogative lit G. k H. 10 Jac. Co. Inst par 4. cap. 74. Dyer Co. ubi supr Co. ibid. l Dyer 23 Eliz. 371. Co. Inst par 4. cap. 74. m Co. Inst par 4. c. 74. Lib. 〈◊〉 Râ—st fo 16. Appeal 10 〈◊〉 ib. Rome 389. n Mere's Rep. o Mich. 14 Jac. B. R. inter Gâ—slin Harden Agreed per Curiam Hob. Rep. Case 314. p Râ—l Abr. ver Prohibition pag. 306. q M. 12. Jac. B. R. Wrots and Clifton per 〈◊〉 Rol. ibid. r Pasch â— Jac. B. per Cur. Rol. ibid. s 8 E. 4. Rol ibid. nu 6. t 8 E. 4. 14. per Choâ—â— u Ibid. x P. 12 Jac. per cur Prohibition denied Tun. 12 Ja. B. R. inter Râ—ynolds and Hâ—yes Adjudg and Consultation granted y Tr. 16 Ja. B. R. inter Grishn and Bulsust per Cur. Rol. ibid. nu 1 l. z Mich. 13 Car. B. R. inter Dr. Peclington and St. Saint John a Mich. 15 â—re B.