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
form following and not otherwise yet the King is not thereby restrained but his power remains full and perfect as before and he may still grant them as King for that all Acts of Grace and Justice flow from him By the Eighth Canon Concilii Calchuthensis held under Pope Adrian the First An. 787. the Pope had power to grant what Immunities and Priviledges he pleased in Church-matters and they were by the said Canon to be duly observed Whatever Authority the Pope pretended to in this Kingdom in such matters by way of Usurpation the same may the King as Supream Governour of the Church next under God in his own Dominions use and lawfully exercise by his Regal Authority ex justa plenitudine Potestatis suae Likewise Pope Agathon An. 680. in Concilio Romano-Britannico exercised his Papal Authority in the time of Lotharius King of Kent not only touching the Reformation of Errors and Heresies then in this Church but also as to the composure of differences and dissentions that then were among the Clergy of this Realm Such Presidents of the usurped power of the Papal See exercised in this Kingdom are now of no further use than to illustrate or exemplifie the Legal power inherent in the Kings of this Realm in such matters of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction for the most High and Sacred Order of Kings being of Divine Right it follows that all persons of what estate soever and all Causes of what quality soever whether Ecclesiastical or Civil within his Majesties Realms and Dominions are subordinated to the Power and Authority of the King as Supream It is not only acknowledged but also constituted by way of an Ecclesiastical Canon That the power of Calling and Dissolving Councils both National and Provincial is the true Right of all Christian Kings within their own Realms and Territories 8. The Ecclesiastical Legislative power was ever in the Kings of this Realm within their own Dominions That in Ancient times they made their own Ecclesiastical Laws Canons and Constitutions appears by several Presidents and Records of very great Antiquity which were received and observed within their own Territories without any Ratification from any Forreign power One instance among many may be given of the Ecclesiastical Laws of Alured Mag. Regis Anglorum An. 887. This they did de jure by virtue of their own inherent Supremacy And therefore when Pope Nicholas the Second An. 1066. in the Bull wherein he ordained Westminster to be the place for the Consecration of Kings gave power to Edward the Confessor and his Successors to constitute such Laws in the Church as he should think fit he gave him therein no more than was his own before For the Kings of England might ordain or repeal what Canons they thought fit within their own Dominions in right of their Regal Supremacy the same being inherent in them Jure Divino non Papali For we find that in King AEtheldreds days An. 1009. in Concilio AEnhamensi Generali the Canons then made and afterwards caused by King Kanutus to be Transcribed were called the Kings Canons not the Bishops En hujus Concilii Canones quos in suas Leges passim transcripsit Rex Canutus Malmsburius AEtheldredo Regi non Episcopis tribuit And the Peers of this Realm per Synodum Landavensem were unexcommunicable nisi prius Consulto Rege aut ejus praecepto Which is a plain demonstration That the Kings of England Anciently had the Supremacy and superintendent Ecclesiastical power and Jurisdiction inherent in themselves exclusively to all other either home or Forreign powers whatever 9. It is by good Authority asserted That the King as Supream is himself instead of the whole Law yea that he is the Law it self and the only chief Interpreter thereof as in whose Breast resides the whole knowledge of the same And that his Majesty by communicating his Authority to his Judge to expound the Laws doth not thereby abdicate the same from himself but that he may assume it again unto him when and as oft as he pleases Dr. Ridl View p. 2. c. 1. Sect. 7. Consonant whereunto is that which Borellus hath Principum Placita Legis habent vigorem eatenus vim Legis obtinebunt quatenus fuerint cum honestate conjuncta Borel de Magist Edict l. 2. c. 4. Roland à Val. Cons 91. nu 54. vo 2. And Suarez tells us That Princeps est Lex viva reipsa praecipit ut Lex per scripturam Of which Opinion also is Alexander Imola and many others Suar. Alleg. 9. nu 13. The grant of Dispensations is a peculiar and very considerable part of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction the which is eminently in the Crown and by the Stat. of 25 H. 8. the Archbishop of Canterbury may grant Dispensations Archiepiscopus possit dispensare contra Statutum Provinciale per se editum Et qui potest jus condere potest illud tollere Lindw de Cler. Conju c. 2. gl ult Extr. de Elect. c. Significasti c. Intonuit And in another place Episcopus in quibusdam Casibus Dispensare potest contra Canones Const Otho de Concu Cler. gl ver Meritis 10. The Laws and Statutes of this Realm have been tender of the Kings Supremacy ever since the Forreign power over the State Ecclesiastical was abolished In the Statute of 13 Car. 2. cap. 12. there is a Proviso That nothing in the said Act shall extend to abridge or diminish the Kings Majesties Supremacy in Ecclesiastical matters and affairs And in the Stat. of 22 Car. 2. cap. 1. there is a Proviso That not any thing therein contained shall extend to invalidate or avoid his Majesties Supremacy in Ecclesiastical affairs but that his Majesty his Heirs and Successors may from time to time and at all times hereafter exercise and enjoy all Powers and Authority in Ecclesiastical affairs as fully and amply as any of his Predecessors have or might have done 11. As no Convocations for Ecclesiastical Constitutions or for correction or reformation of Abuses in the Church can be Conven'd without his Majesties Writ for that end and purpose so being Conven'd no Canons or Constitutions that shall then be agreed on can have any effect in Law or be in force to oblige any of his Majesties Subjects until his consent thereunto be first had and obtained and until they shall have the power of Ecclesiastical Laws by being ratified and confirmed by the Supream Authority Therefore the Archbishop of Canterbury may not hold a Council for his Province without the Kings leave for when such Council was held by Hubert Archbishop of Canterbury it was prohibited by Fitz-Peter Chief Justice for that he had not the Kings License therein but he would not obey And 13 E. 3. Rot. Parl. M. 1. there was a Writ for a Convocation of the Clergy of the Province of Canterbury and Pauls And another for the other of York vid. Stat. 25 H. 8. c. 19. where the Clergy of England acknowledge that
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
as Patron claiming the Patronage to himself for such a Collation doth amount to a Presentation and here are two or three Collations pleaded which should put the Queen out of possesion although she shall not be bound by the First during the life of the first Incumbent Vid. Br. Quare Impedit 31. upon the abridging of the Case of 47 E. 3. 4. That two Presentments the one after the other shall put the King out of possession and put him to his Writ of Right of Advowson which Anderson denied And it was holden by the whole Court here is not any Presentation and then no possession gained by the Collations and although the Bishop doth Collate as Patron and not as Ordinary yet it is but a Collation And there is a great difference betwixt Collation and Presentation for Collation is a giving of the Church to the Parson but Presentation is a giving or offering of the Parson to the Church and that makes a Plenarty but not a Collation 3. The Collation of the Ordinary for Lapse is in Right of the Patron and will serve him for a Possession in a Darrein Presentment as appears by Colt and Glover's Case against the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield where it is said That the Ordinary or he that presents by Lapse is a kind of Attorney made by Law to do that for the Patron which it is supposed he would do himself if there were not some lett and thefore the Collation by Lapse is in right of the Patron and for his turn 24 E. 3. 26. And he shall lay it as his possession for an Assize of Darrein Presentment 5 H. 7. 43. It seems also by Gawdy's Case against the Archbishop of Canterbury and others That although a Bishop Collate wrongfully yet this makes such a Plenarty as shall barr the Lapse of the Metropolitan and the King And this Collation by Lapse is an act and office of Trust reposed by Law in the Ordinary Metropolitan and King the Title of Lapse being rather an Administration than an Interest as in Colt's Case aforesaid which Title of Collating by Lapse may be prevented by bringing a Quare Impedit against the Bishop Also where and in what Cases the bringing of that Writ against the Bishop shall or shall not prevent such Collation appears in the Case of Brickhead against the Archbishop of York as Reported by Sir Hen. Hobart Chief Justice 4. Presentation is the Nomination of a Clerk to the Ordinary to be Admitted and Instituted by him to a Benefice void and the same being in Writing is nothing but a Letter Missive to the Bishop or Ordinary to exhibite to him a Clerk to have the Benefice voided the Formal force hereof resteth in these words viz. Praesento vobis Clericum meum Thus Presentation properly so called is the act of a Patron offering his Clerk to the Bishop to be Instituted in a Benefice of his Gift It is where a man hath a Right to give any Benefice Spiritual and presents the person to the Bishop to whom he gives it and makes an Instrument in writing to the Bishop in his favour and in case there be divers Coheirs and they not according in the Presentation that which is made by the eldest of the Coheirs shall be first Admitted but if it be by Joyntenants or Tenants in Common and they accord not within Six months the Bishop shall present by Lapse By the Statute of 13 Eliz. cap. 12. a Presentation of an Infant to a Benefice is void And although a Presentation being but the Commendation of a fit person by the Patron to the Bishop or Ordinary to be Admitted and Instituted into a Benefice may be done either by word alone or by a Letter or other writing yet the Grant of a next Avoidance is not good without Deed But a Presentation being no other than a Commendation of a Clerk to the Ordinary as aforesaid and only a thing concerning an Advowson without passing any interest of the Inheritance of the Advowson may be done by word only upon which ground it was Resolved by the whole Court That the Kings Presentation unto an Advowson Appendant to a Mannor parcel of his Dutchy under the Great Seal of England without the Seal of the Dutchy was well made and good Yea and for the same Reason for that a Presentation is but a Commendation and toucheth not the Inheritance was the Kings Presentation to the Deanary of Norwich held good albeit in the said Presentation he mistook and mis-recited the Name of the Foundation of the Deanary 5. A. seized of an Advowson in Fee Grants Praesentationem to B quandocunque quomodocunque Ecclesia vacare contigerit pro unica vice tantum in the Grant there was further this Clause viz. Insuper voluit concessit That the Grant should remain in force quousque Clericus habilis idoneus shall by his Presentation be Admitted Instituted and Inducted Afterwards A. grants away the Advowson in Fee unto S. The Church becomes void S. Presents The Church becomes void again S. Presents G. upon a Disturbance of M. the Presentee of B. the First Grantee a Quare Impedit is brought The Question was Whether B. the First Grantee not Presenting upon the First Avoidance had lost the benefit of his Grant In this Case it was Adjudged by the whole Court That although A. the Grantor grants Donationem Praesentaâ—ionem quandocunque Ecclesia vacare contigerit pro unica vice tantum yet B. ought to have taken the first Presentation that happened and hath not Election to take any turn other than the First when the Church first became void and by his neglect in not Presenting then had lost the benefit of his Grant and the subsequent words in the Grant are but only an Explanation of the words precedent and relate to the next Avoidance 6. The Right of Presentation is a Temporal thing and a Temporal Inheritance and therefore belongeth to the Kings Temporal Laws to determine as also to make Laws who shall Present after Six months as well as before so as the Title of Examination of Ability or Nonability be not thereby taken from the Ordinary The Law is the same touching Avoidances for it shall be judged by the Kings Temporal Laws when and whether the Church may be said to be void or not the cognizance whereof doth not belong to the Kings Ecclesiastical Laws and therefore where a Parson is made a Bishop or accepts another Benefice without License or Resigneth or be Deprived In these cases the Common Law would hold the Church void albeit there were any Ecclesiastical Law to the contrary And it is sufficient for the Ordinary's discharge if the Presentee be able by whomsoever he be Presented which Authority is acknowledged on all sides to have been ever inherent in the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction But as to the Right of Presentation it self to determine who ought to Present and who
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
3. Cistercians discharged of Tithes p. 401. Their Priviledge in respect of Synodals p. 72. s 9. Citation whether it may issue originally out of the Archbishops Consistory to any not inhabiting within his Diocess or Peculiar without License first obtain'd from the Diocesan p. 20. sect 12. p. soi s 3. p. 105. s 6. City what properly p. 15. s 3. Clay whether Tithable p. 392. Clergy whence so called p. 61. s 1. Margent What their Priviledges p. 193 c. s 18. Clerico capto per Statututum Mercatorum what that Writ imports p. 648. s 12. Clerico convicto commisso Goalae in delectu Ordinarii deliberando what that Writ signifies p. ibid. s 13. Clerico infra Sacros Ordines constituto non eligendo in Officium what the use and end of that Writ p. ibid. sect 11. p. 652. s 26. Clothes Fulled in a Fulling-Mill whether Tithable p. 392. Coals whether Tithable p. ibid. Coat-Armour in a Church whether Action lies against such as pull it down and for whom p. 139. sect 5. p. 150. s 22. p. 154. s 35. p 156. s 38. p. 157. s 42. Collation what p. 252. s 1. How it differs from Presentation and Institution ibid. It is only in Right of the Patron p. 254. s 3. Commendam what p. 230 231. sect 1. Threefold p. ibid. p. 232. s 3. The Law touching Commendams p. 232. sect 4 c. Commissary or Commissarus Foraneus what p. 81. Sect. 1. p. 83. S. 5. and p. 89. Sect. 15. Whether the Grant of a Commissarie's place or the reveâ—â—an thereof by a Bishop shall bind his Successors p. 90 91. Sect. 17 8. Whether the Office of a Commissary may be granted to a Lay-person p. 90 91. Sect. 18. p. 89. Sect. 15. Common of Estovers whether Tithable p. 392. Commposition in reference to Tithes what the Law therein 392 393. For a mans life whether good without Deed p. 372. Sect. 45. For one year or more whether good without Deed p. 377. Sect. 61. Commutation for Penance justifiable by Law p. 89. Sect. 14. Confirmation of Bishops what p. 44. Sect. 3 4. The form thereof ib. and p. 25 26. Conge d'Eslire what p. 29. Sect. 7. p. 42. Sect. 1. The original thereof ibid. Restrictions thereof p. 29. Sect. 8. Consecration of Bishops what p. 46. Sect. 1. The manner how and the ancient solemnity thereof p. 25 26. Sect. 4. It is Character indelebilis p. 49. Sect. 6. The Scandal forged by the Romanists touching Consecration of Bishops in England p. 27. Sect. 4. How Churches were anciently consecrated p. 47 48. Sect. 3 4 5. Consent to the 39 Articles what not good p. 163. Sect. 8. Consistory what p. 83. Sect. 5 6. Whence the word derived and the diverse significations thereof p. 83 84. Sect. 6. Constituted by Willam the Conquerour p. 84. Sect. 7. The Original and Antiquity of Consistories p. ibid. Sect. 7. The difference between Consistorium and Tribunal p. 85 Sect. 9. Consolidation of Churches what and whence so called p. 169. Sect. 1. How distinguished in Law p. 172. Sect. 6. How many ways it may be p. 170. Sect. 2. The reasons or grounds thereof in Law p. 170 Sect. 3. The legal requisites in order thereto p. 171. Sect. 4. Constitutions of Claringdon in order to Church-government p. 100. Sect. 2. Consultation in what Cases it hath been awarded p. 116. Sect. 12. p. 165. Sect. 11. p. 125. Sect. 31. p. 141. Sect. 7. p. 143. Sect. 10. p. 144 Sect. 12. p. 193. Sect. 17. p. 393. Sect. 27. p. 376. Sect. 56. p. 379. Sect. 71. p. 380. Sect. 73. p. 174. Sect. 1. p. 385. 394. 401. 410. 413. 414. 415. 420. 422. p. 426. 431. 435. 450. 453. 459. 463. 464. 506. Where a Consultation is awarded after a Prohibition there no new Prohibition to be on the same Libel p. 116. Sect. 112. Convocation Court what p. 98. Sect. 2. p. 586. Sect. 4. How and by whom convened p. 99. Sect. 2. p. 586. Sect. 4. The Antiquity Power Priviledges and Jurisdiction thereof ibid. Conies Taken in a Warren whether Tithable p. 393. They are not Tithable of Common right p. 375. Sect. 53. Corn The Law in reference to the Tithes thereof p. 393 394 c. A Case in Law touching Corn set out for Tithes and left by the Parson on the Ground p. 362. Sect. 23. Costs of Suit in what Case not given upon failure of proof of a suggestion within the six months p. 378. Sect. 66. Costs obtain'd by Church-wardens in a Suit for Reparations are to the use of the Church p. 144. Sect. 12. Costs of Suit discharged by a Pardon relating before the Taxation thereof p. 116. Sect. 12. Covent anciently a Corporation p. 328. Sect. 4. Councils to whom the power of calling and dissolving them belongs p. 5. Sect. 7. The several kinds thereof p. 584. Sect. 1. Sect. 8. A Catalogue of Councils and Synods p. 592 c. Courts Ecclesiastical the several kinds thereof p. 96. Sect. 1 c. Court of Augmentations what p 333. Sect. 10. Cowes yielding Milk whether Tithes due for their Pasture p. 396. Cranmer when and how he became Archbishop of Canterbury p. 18. Sect. 8. Cuckold whether Action lies for calling one Cuckoldly Knave and where p. 521. Sect 15. p. 520. Sect. 12. Curate whether he may prescribe against the Parson p. 376. Sect. 56. Curtelages whether Tithes are due out of such p. 396. Custome in reference to Tithes how it differs from Prescription p. 396. What Customes not Triable in the Ecclesiastical Courts p. 120 Sect. 17. D. DAmmages who shall have them Treble and in what Case p. 381. Sect. 76. p. 380. Sect. 72. Darrein Presentment what that Writ imports in what Case it lies wherein it differs from a Quare Impedit and when it abates p. 644. Sect. 1. p. 648. Sect. 17. David Vncle to King Arthur succeeded Dubritius in the Archbishoprick of Caerlegion in Wales p. 17. Sect 6. Dean what why so called p. 51. Sect. 1. The several kinds thereof ibid. Sect. 2. and p. 54. Sect. 4. What Dean and Chapter signifies p. 51. Sect. 1. Whether they are a Body Politick Spiritual or Temporal p. 366 367. Sect. 34. Dean of the Arches whence so called p. 103. Sect. 4. Deans Rural what p. 33. Sect. 1. A Lay-man once Dean of Durham p. 367. Sect. 34. Deanary whereof it consists p. 55. Sect. 7. Whether Deanaries are understood as Benefices with Cure p. 200. Sect. 13. p. 286. Sect. 6. Whether a Deanary may be a Dispensation be held in Commendam with a Bishoprick p. 112. Sect. 10. Decimae Majores Minores what and to whom payable p. 398. Decrees and Decretals of the Canon Law when first published here in England p. 129. Sect. 44. Deer whether Tithable p. 375. Sect. 53. and p. 398. Defamation what and where Cognizable p. 515 c. Degradation what p. 309. Sect. 8. May be done two ways ibid. Deprivation what p. 306. Sect. 1.
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