incroach upon them by Papal Provisions Cum igitur à primâ Christianitatis Fundatione in Angliâ tali fuerint hactenus progenitores nostri gavisi libertate quod decedentibus Ecclesiarum Rectoribus Ecclesiarum Patroni Personas idoneas eligentes ad easdem Diocesanis praesentaverunt ab eisdem Ecclesiarum Regimini praeficiendas These are words of great Weight and do plainly shew that the Right of Patronage consisted in the Nomination of Fit Persons to the Bishop of the Diocese for any vacant Places but that the Bishops were if they approved them to put them into the Possession of them In the time of Innocent III. the King wrote to the Pope that the Nobility and Bishops of England did insist upon it as their Right by the Ancient Custom to build Churches on their own Lands and the Pope yielded it to the Laity provided that they had the Consent of the Bishop of the Diocese and that the Rights of former Churches were not prejudiced thereby But saith Mr. Selden they challenged it without Licence What to do To build Churches on their own Lands but not a word of putting-in any Incumbents by their own power without the Bishop's Consent and Approbation Nay it appears that they could not build Churches on their own Lands without the Bishops Allowance Mr. Selden would fain have it believed That the Right of Presentation to the Bishop of the Diocese came in by the Canon Law about A. D. 1200. But the Insinuations of that kind as they are frequent in his Book of Tythes so they do shew his want of Skill or Ingenuity at that time as much as any one part of it But I need go no farther than this Letter of the Nobility to the Pope who were extremely jealous of their Rights of Patronage and yet they challenged nothing thereby but a Right of Nomination of a Fit Person to the Bishop of the Diocese not a word of Investiture or Collation by the Patron which Mr. Selden talks of He doth not deny That after A. D. 1200 it was the undoubted Law of England for the Patrons to present to the Bishops But I say it was the Law of England before ever the Decretals were made it was the Original and Fundamental Law of the English Church and as Ancient as the Right of Patronage In the same Epistle they desire the Pope to leave them to their ancient Liberty which was Personas idoneas praesentare But who is to be Judge of the Fitness of the Persons For that we have a full Declaration of the Ancient Law and Custom of England in Artic. Cleri c. 13. De Idoneitate Personae praesentatae ad Beneficium Ecclesiasticum pertinet Examinatio ad Iudicem Ecclesiasticum ita est hactenus usitatum fiat in posterum Upon which my Lord Coke saith That the Examination of the Ability and Sufficiency of the Person belongs to the Bishop who is the Ecclesiastical Iudge and in this Examination he is a Iudge and not a Minister and may and ought to refuse the Person presented if he be not Persona idonea And that this was no new Law appears by the words That it had been hitherto so used and should be so for the time to come And so Coke truly saith that this Act was but a Declaration of the Common Law and Custom of the Realm So that the Bishops Power of Examining and Iudging the Fitness of the Person presented is a part of the Common Law of England 15 H. 7. 8. It is declared by all the Judges That the Bishop in the Examination of a Clerk is a Iudge and not a Minister And if he misbehaves himself he is to be punished as a Iudge 18 H. 7. Keilway saith That the Bishop may refuse for Insufficiency and is to give notice to the Patron It was Resolved by the Court in Specot ' s Case That the Court is to give Credit to the Bishop acting Iudicially but then it is said That the Plea must be special and certain And so Coke saith that in a Quare Impedit brought against the Bishop for Refusal of his Clerk he must shew the Cause of his Refusal specially and directly But it was the Opinion of Lord Chief Justice Anderson That in things not Triable at Common Law a General Plea was sufficient But when the Case came to the King's Bench 32 Eliz. it was there said That the Articuli Cleri mention a Reasonable Cause which say they must be Special for Causa vaga incerta non est rationabilis But the main point is Who is to judge what is a Reasonable Cause and I cannot but think that Anderson's Opinion is the truest and most Reasonable If it be for a matter Triable at Common Law that Court is to judge but if not I do not see how it can be avoided but the Bishop must judge and his Judgment of Insufficiency must be taken as well as in any Certificate whatsoever For if the Law trust him with the Judgment of a Matter proper for him to judge of other courts which have no Cognizance of it must give credit to such a Certificate or else they must take upon them to judge in Matters that are not of their Cognisance which is to confound the Jurisdiction of Courts I grant the Judgment of the Bishop is not Conclusive but the Appeal then lies to the Supreme Ecclesiastical Court and the Metropolitan is to be Judge of the Sufficiency of the Person But is not this a great Prejudice to the Right of Patrons if the Bishops are to judge of the Fitness of Persons presented and so the Patrons Presentation may signify nothing if the Bishop pleases This is a Trust which the Law reposes in the Bishop and it lies upon his Conscience to act sincerely in this matter and in case of Examination of Fit Persons a Trust must be placed somewhere and in whom more properly than in the Bishop of the Diocese to whom the Care of it doth especially belong and that by as plain Law as any we have Are not all Judges trusted in Matters that come before them But this is no Decisive Judgment for an Appeal lies according to the Nature of the Matter And this is no other Trust than hath been allow'd in all other Christian Nations where the Rights of Patronage are owned Iustinian owns it several times in his Novels not only that the Bishops are to Examine and Approve those who are nominated by Founders of Churches but if they find them unworthy they may put others in their room By the Capitulars or old Ecclesiastical Laws of France the Lay Patrons are not only to present to the Bishop such as were Probabilis Vitae Doctrinae but if upon Examination they found them otherwise it was in their power to reject them As to the Canon Law there can be no Dispute in this Point but if the Bishop refused an Appeal did lie
expressed in that Statute then it must declare what is Simony and what not Simony saith my Lord Coke is described by this Act 31 Eliz. and he saith in his Margin Injustum est illa vendere quae gratis distribui debent which is a very good Illustration of it But the Question is what is meant by Selling whether it be meerly for a Summ of Money paid down or secured by Bond or Covenant or whether it doth not take in any kind of Benefit or Emolument accruing to the Person who bestows it which hinders it from being a Free Gift The Casuists say Nomine emptionis venditionis intelligitur omnis contractus non gratuitus But can that be called a Free Gift where there is a Bond of Resignation of such a thing whereof the Possession and Reversion bear a Price and have a real Value We need not run to Simon Magus to understand what Turpe Commercium is There were many Laws among the old Romans against purchasing any Publick Offices and they thought it a great Reproach to them for any Price to be set upon them as the great Roman Master said Pretium quod habet hoc ipso vilescit By the Laws Acilia and Calpurnia all that were Convict of giving Money for Offices were under a Disability or Incapacity of any for the future and the Mercatores Potestatum were Infamous by their Laws Aristotle thought it a matter of very ill Consequence to any Government to have any thing of Money given for Offices because it taught men to set a greater value on Money than Vertue These Considerations setting aside the Story of Simon Magus were great enough to induce the Christian Church to be extremely Nice and Tender in this matter of Benefices and not only to forbid the direct Sale of them for Money but any indirect Trafficking which might take of the entire Freedom of the Presentation of Persons to them I know to how little purpose it would be to reckon up all the Canons which have been made in the Christian Church from the Apostles Times downwards against Simony because some will say That the Ecclesiasticks were always true to their own Interest But let us set aside all Prejudice in this matter and consider it Impartially If any Offices in the World ought to be free from the Suspicion of Sordid Trafficking certainly those of the Church ought from the Nature and Design of their Imployments The Question then will come to this Whether giving a Bond of Resignation in order to the Procuring a Benefice be such a Trafficking or not And we have three Rules to Judge by 1. The Nature and Reason of the thing whether such Actings be not inconsistent with that Freedom which ought to be used both in Giving and Taking Ecclesiastical Benefices So that if there were no Laws either Ecclesiastical or Civil in the Case whether there be not something in these Transactions unbecoming the Design and Dignity of the Employment 2. The Ecclesiastical Law of England which hath been from time to time receiv'd here and allow'd by a general Consent and still continues in Force where it is not repugnant to any Laws of the Realm which cannot be pretended in this Case 3. The Statute Law which doth not abrogate the Ecclesiastical Law as to Simony it only Enacts some particular Penalties on some more Remarkable Simoniacal Acts as to Benefices and Orders but never once goes about to Repeal any Ecclesiastical Laws about Simony or to determin the Nature and Bounds of it 2. But let us come more closely to the Statute it self to see whether these Bonds of Resignation be not against the Design of it The Words are If any Person for any Summ of Money Reward Gift Profit or Benefit directly or indirectly or for or by reason of any Promise Agreement Grant Bond Covenant or other Assurance of or for any Summ of Money Gift or Profit whatsoever directly or indirectly shall Present c. Now we suppose a Patron to Present one to a Benefice without any Money or Bond for Money but he declares before his Presenting him that he must enter into a Bond to Resign his Benefice upon six months Notice under a severe Penalty to which he submits on the Condition of obtaining his Benefice After this the Patron demands such a Portion of Tythes or a Consent for him to Inclose to the apparent Benefit of the Patron and Diminution of the Profits of the Living The Question is Whether such a Bond be within the Design of this Statute All that can be said is that no such Consideration is expressed in the Bond which is in General Terms which implies that if the Consideration had been Expressed in the Bond it had been plainly against the Law But suppose it be left out of the Bond is not the Penal Summ of the Forfeiture of the Bond sufficient to make the poor Incumbent comply with the Terms proposed afterwards If none but just and reasonable things had been intended why were they not clearly expressed in the Bond it self so as to prevent any Fear or Jealousy of worse Designs Have no such things ever been practised or heard of among us If there had not doth it not look like a Contrivance to Deceive the Law and to hamper the Consciences of those who take Benefices And whatever is done in Fraudem Legis is against Law for it frustrates the main Intention and Design of a Law without breaking the Letter of it which is the worst way of defeating a Law But we are told That our Courts of Law are to judge according to the Law and not according to an Equitable Construction of the Intention and Design of it If it be really so it doth only shew that such Courts are under a strange Limitation which are tied up to the Letter of a Law against the main Scope and principal End of it But by the Judges Oath 18 E. 3. n. 2. 20 E. 3. n. l. they are bound to do Equal Law and Execution of Right to all the King's Subjects c. What is here meant by Equal Law Is it to pursue the Letter of the Law against the Reason and Design of it There are two sorts of Equity to be consider'd among us 1. An Equity founded upon a Reasonable Construction of Law according to the Intention of it 2. An Equity for which the Common Law hath made no Provision as in Cases of Fraud Accident and Trust which is the true Foundation of the Court of Equity in Chancery viz. to supply the Defects of our Law in those Cases The Question now is Whether the Judges at Common Law are so tied up to the bare Letter of it that they cannot take-in such Cases which are according to the Reason of a Law but not within the Words of it And my Lord Coke allows this sort of Equity For saith he Equity is a Construction made by the Iudges that Cases out of the Letter
Incouragement of those in Holy Orders to attend upon the Service of God in them and the Law of the Land hath so annexed the Spiritual Duty with the Temporal Advantage that no one can be capable of the latter that is not obliged to the other So that the Right of Discharging a Spiritual Trust and the Right of Enjoying the Profits go together But to prevent the unspeakable mischief of Purchasing the Profits which are devoted to such a Spiritual use this hath been called by the detestable Name of Simony and very severe Laws have been made not only against the giving of Money but the using of any indirect means to obtain a Presentation Because such things do lessen the Esteem of those who use them and not only thereby make them more uncapable of doing Service but expose the Sacred Function it self to Contempt 2. Another great End of these Laws is to keep the Clergy from Oppression and Slavery I am far from going about to lessen the Just and Legal Rights of Patrons who by our Laws enjoy some Privileges which are not allowed them in other Countries where the Ecclesiastical Law is stricter than here in England as in the liberty of Selling the Rights of Advowsons their Trial at Common Law the six Months for Patrons c. But for our right understanding the present matter it must be consider'd as to the Rights of Patrons That it was not an Original and Absolute Right to dispose of Benefices as they pleased but a limited Trust reposed in them to put-in Fit Persons to Discharge the Duties of their Places It is very well known to all persons who have looked into these matters that in the first Settlement of this Church of England the Bishops of the several Dioceses had them under their own immediate Care and that they had the Clergy living in a Community with them whom they sent abroad to several parts of their Dioceses as they saw occasion to Imploy them but that by Degrees they saw a necessity of fixing Presbyters within such a Compass to attend upon the Service of God among the People that were the Inhabitants that these Precincts which are since called Parishes were at first much larger and cast into such Divisions in each Diocese as probably make up the several Deaneries since that when Lords of Manors were inclined to build Churches for their own Conveniencies they found it necessary to make some Endowments to oblige those who officiated in their Churches to a diligent Attendance that upon this the several Bishops were very well content to let those Patrons have the Nomination of Persons to those Churches provided they were satisfied of the Fitness of those Persons and that it were not deferred beyond such a limited time So that the Right of Patronage is really but a limited Trust and the Bishops are still in Law the Judges of the Fitness of the Persons to be Imployed in the several parts of their Dioceses But the Patrons never had the Absolute Disposal of their Benefices upon their own Terms but if they did not present Fit Persons within the limited time the Care of the Places did return to the Bishop who was then bound to provide for them Some pretend That before the Lateran Council there was no time of Lapse to the Bishop if the Patron did not Present but that the Bishop was to provide one to serve the Cure in the mean time and the Patron might present when he would But this is certainly a Mistake however it be asserted by Persons of great Authority My Lord Coke cites Bracton and Fleta for it but I can find nothing like it in either of them Bracton indeed speaks of the time of Lapse by the Council of Lateran which was to be after six Months if a Dispute happen'd about the Title and this Constitution is extant in the Decretals and the same Words are used by Fleta but not a Word in either of them of any unlimited Power which Patrons had before as far as I can find Which made me wonder at such a Maxim as I find by several father'd on Bracton Ante Concilium Lateranense nullum currebat tempus contra Praesentantes But Rolls very fairly reports it just as it is in Bracton yet afterwards he recites Mr. Selden's words Before this Lateran Council Alex. had sent a Constitution hither which allow'd the Bishops in case any Difference happened about the Patronage to sequester the Profits without fixing the Time which is all the Foundation I can meet with for this famous Maxim But before this we may observe several Canons of Councils which limited the Patrons to three Months These Canons were never receiv'd in England which if I mistake not had always the privilege of six Months for Patrons This I ground upon the Register a Book of great Authority and considerable Antiquity where it is said expresly That the Bishops have not the Right of Lapse till six Months are passed which is said to be Secundum legem Consuetudinem Regni Angliae according to the ancient Custom and Law of England And the like was observed in the old Customs of Normandy But by the Ancient Law of England notwithstanding the Right of Patronage the Bishop of the Diocese had these Rights reserved to him 1. The Right of Admission of the Person presented 2. The Right of Lapse or bestowing the Benefice if the Patron failed his six Months 3. The Right of making an Avoidance by Deprivation or Resignation 1. The Bishop hath by the Law the Right of Admission of the Person presented by the Patron For here from the time of Christianity being receiv'd among the Saxons at least as far as we can trace any Footsteps of the Settlement of a Parochial Clergy it was expresly provided for That no Presbyters should be fixed in any Places without the Consent of the Bishop For this we have a Canon of Theodore Archbishop of Canterbury preserved by Egbert Archbishop of York each the Seventh in their Sees but at some distance of time in his Collection of Canons the words are Statutum est ut sine Authoritate Consensu Episcoporum Presbyteri in quibuslibet Ecclesiis non constituantur nec inde expellantur siquis hoc facere tentaverit Synodali Sententiâ feriatur So that by the Original Constitution of this Church the Bishops had the Power of Fixing Presbyters in Churches and of Removing them if there were occasion and no other Persons could do it without them This doth by no means infringe the Right of Nomination or Presentation of Fit Persons to the Bishop but it implies that no such Presentation was sufficient unless the Bishop did first Approve and Consent to the Person Wherein the Ancient Right of Patronage here in England did consist we cannot have a better Account than from the Words of all the Nobility of England in their Remonstrance to Gregory IX when he attempted to
what Bargains they think fit who mind not the Men but the Advantage they are to get by them And there is a just Presumption that those are not very Deserving who are ready to drive such Bargains for themselves and such Men are not to be valued as Cattle in a Market by the Money they will yield 2. That Lawyers would not encourage their Clients in indirect methods of obtaining Presentations For here lies a great part of our present Mischief the Clergymen who want Benefices They say We are Ignorant of the Law but we go to those whose business it is to understand it and they tell us they have Cases and Precedents in their Books for such Bonds and they have been many times adjudged in the Courts of Law to be good and therefore why are we to blame if we submit to them But here lies the great Mistake the Point is really a Point of Conscience as to the Oath but the Question put to them can be only a Point of Law who are to give Judgment upon the Statute and according to the Rules of Judgment allowed in their Courts But I cannot but observe that there is no Precedent offer'd before 8 Iac. 1. and in the 15th was a contrary Judgment In the Beginning of Charles I. the former Judgment was affirmed and from hence it hath come to be such a prevailing Opinion I confess that I am not satisfied how far such Precedents or one or two Judicial Sentences make a thing to pass for Law nor whether the Authority of such a Sentence or the Reason is to give the Force of Law to it I observe that my Lord Coke when he speaks of the Laws of England he reckons up Common-Law Statute-Law Customs reasonable c. but he never mentions the Judgment of the Courts as any Part of our Law they being no more but a Declaratory Sentence of the Majority of the Judges when it may be the other differ upon better Reasons and when such Reasons come to be thought better by one more at another time then the contrary must pass for Law on the same grounds How often do we hear that the Judges were divided in their Opinions in point of Law How often that the greater number went one way but Law and Reason on the other Suppose a Lord Chief Justice of great Skill and Knowledge in the Law to be unequally yoked with others of far less Judgment how is it possible to prevent that Judgment shall not be given on the wrong side if the three happen to be of an Opinion against him or one be absent and two be against one In a late great Cause viz. of Commendam although three Judges concurred in Opinion and the General Practise was allowed to be of that side yet because one Judge differ'd from the rest his Authority was produced against the Sentence of the Court and for what Cause can this be but the Supposition that it is not the Sentence but the Reason which makes the Law My Lord Chief Justice Hales in a MS. Discourse of the History and Analysis of the Laws of England Chap. 4. makes three Constituents of the Common Law of England 1. The Common Usage and Custom 2. The Authority of Parliament 3. The Iudicial Decisions of Courts of Iustice but how Consonant to one another in the Series and Succession of Time This is spoken with great Judgment For no doubt a mighty Regard ought to be shewed to a Concurrent Sense of so many Persons of Ability in the Law in the different Times wherein such Matters have been before them and this is the highest Authority for expounding the Law but it cannot amount to the Making of a Law For as the same Excellent Person adds It is true the Decisions of Courts of Iustice although by the strength of the Law of this Kingdom they do bind as a Law between the Parties to it in that particular Case in Question till Reversed by Error or Attaint yet they do not make a Law for that only the King by the Assent of Parliament can do All that I aim at is not in the least to take off from the Authority and Reverence due to Judicial Decisions built upon a General Agreement from time to time or upon Evident Reason in point of Law but only that things should not be so positively asserted to be Law which are built only on a few Modern Precedents without any convincing Evidence Which I take to be the present Case 3. That the Clergy would mind their own Honour and Interest and that of the Church and Religion so much as not to Accept of Benefices upon such Ensnaring Terms as those of Bonds of Resignation If what I have said on this Argument be true I am sure they have all the Reason in the World to Refuse them when they know not what the Consequence of them may be and they do know what kind of Oath they are to take And no Man can honestly take an Oath that is not satisfied that such Bonds are no Simoniacal Contract in the Sense of that Law by which he is required to take the Oath Now the Oath is not imposed by the Courts of Common Law in pursuance of the Statute for then it were to be understood according to the Sense and Meaning of it but that very Statute leaves the Ecclesiastical Laws as they were by which Simony is of a larger Extent than it is understood at Common Law and by those Laws this Oath is required Therefore my Request is to all such Clergymen as are in danger of having such put upon them that they would study the Case and satisfy their Minds before they venture upon taking an Oath which may afterwards rob them of that Peace and Tranquillity of Mind which every Good man will Esteem above any Benefice in the World FINIS Page 73. lin 13. for Gays read Gayr Ibid. Marg. for Mar. read Moor. A Catalogue of Books published by the Right Reverend Father in God Edward Lord Bishop of Worcester and sold by Henry Mortlock at the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-Yard A Rational account of the Grounds of Protestant Religion being a Vindication of the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury's Relation of a Conference c. from the pretended Answer of T. C. wherein the true Grounds of Faith are cleared and the false discovered the Church of England vindicated from the imputation of Schism and the most important particular Controversies between us and those of the Church of Rome throughly examined the second Edition Folio Sermons preached upon several Occasions with a Discourse annexed concerning the true Reasons of the Sufferings of Christ wherein Crellius his Answer to Grotius is considered Folio Origines Britannicae or the Antiquities of the British Churches with a Preface concerning some pretended Antiquities relating to Britain in vindication of the Bishop of St. Asaph Folio Irenicum A Weapon Salve for the Churches Wounds Quarto Origines Sacrae or a Rational Account of
the Grounds of Christian Faith as to the Truth and Divine Authority of the Scriptures and the matters therein contained Quarto The Unreasonableness of Separation or an Impartial account of the History Nature and Pleas of the present Separation from the Communion of the Church of England to which several late Letters are annexed of eminent Protestant Divines abroad concerning the Nature of our Differences and the way to compose them Quarto A Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome and the hazard of Salvation in the Communion of it in Answer to some Papers of a revolted Protestant wherein a particular account is given of the Fanaticism and Divisions of that Church Octavo An Answer to several late Treatises occasioned by a Book entituled A Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome and the hazard of Salvation in the Communion of it Part I. Octavo A Second Discourse in vindication of the Protestant Grounds of Faith against the pretence of Infallibility in the Roman Church in Answer to the Guide in Controversie by R. H. Protestancy without Principles and Reason and Religion or the certain Rule of Faith by E. W. with a particular enquiry into the Miracles of the Rom. Church Octa. An Answer to Mr. Cressy's Epistle apologetical to a Person of Honour touching his Vindication of Dr. Stillingfleet Octavo A Defence of the Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome in answer to a Book entituled Catholicks no Idolaters Octavo Several Conferences between a Romish Priest a Fanatick Chaplain and a Divine of the Church of England being a full Answer to the late Dialogues of T. G. Octavo The Grand Question concerning the Bishops Right to vote in Parliament in Cases Capital stated and argued from the Parliament Rolls and the History of former times with an Enquiry into their Peerage and the Three Estates in Parliament Octavo The Bishop of Worcester's Charge to the Clergy of his Diocese in his primary Visitation begun at Worcester Sept. 11. 1690. A Discourse concerning the Illegality of the Ecclesiastical Commission in Answer to the Vindication and Defence of it wherein the true notion of the Legal Supremacy is cleared and an Account is given of the Nature Original and Mischief of the Dispensing Power The Council of Trent Examin'd and Disprov'd by Catholick Tradition in the main points in Controversie between Us and the Church of Rome with a particular Account of the Times and Occasions of Introducing them Twenty Sermons preached upon several occasions not yet collected into a Volume Quarto 3. Inst. 156. Cr. Car. 361. 3. Inst. 153. Marg. F. 156. Hob. f. 167. Cr. Car. 361. Sylvestr v. Simon Sigon de Judic l. 2. c. 30. Quintil. l. 12. V. Ciceron â—ro Plancio Dion l. 36. Lamprid. in Alex. Sever. Arist. Pol. l. 2. c. 12. â— Inst. 24. b. 3. Inst. 156. Noy 25. C. de jurejur Present stat Lyndw. f. 56. 2. Inst. 361. Bract. l. 4. 341. Ext. de Jure Patron c. 22. Fleta l. 5. c. 14. Selden of Tythes c. 12. 389. Abridgment 2. 354. Ext. de Officio Jud. Ordin c. 4. Eugen. 2. in Synod Rom. c. 24. Leo 4. in Synod Rom. c. 25. ed. Holst Registr f. 42. Cust. Norm Art 69. pelm. Conil Matt. Paris A. D. 1239. p. 513. Innocent Epist l. 1. Selden of Tythes 361. â— 387. 83. 86. 38â— 2. Inst. 632. 5 R. 57. Anders 190. Leon. 3. 200. Novel 53. â—it 12. c. 2. 23. c. 18. Cap. l. 1. c. 84. l. 5. 98. Addit 4. 95. Ext. de Jure Patr. c. 29. Rebuff de Nomin n. 10. Fra. de Roye de Jure Patron Proleg c. 25. Hob. 154. De Roye de Jure Patr. p. 95. 145. Dr. Stud. c. 36. 125. Hob. 17. Brownl 21. 27. Dr. Stud. 124. Plowd Com. 498. b. 1. Inst. 341. Glanvil l. 13. c. 20. 1. Inst. 343. b. 2. Inst. 357. v. Flamin Paris de Resignat l. 7. c. 1. n. 9. Lyndw. f. 55. c. Ne lepra 6. de Appel c. Roman Lyndw. f. 54. 9 R. 41. De Testam v. Stat. v. Approbat 6. De Ossicio Vicarii c. 2. De Sequestr v. Officiales Bracton l. 5. c. 2. Fleta l. 6. c. 37. 1. Inst. 96. Cowel v. Ordin Cr. Car. 65. Noy 91. 152. Noy 157. â—wen 12. Yelvert 60 Mar. 765. Cr. 2. 63. 1. Inst. 344 1. Inst. 344. Registr 40. 3. â—ynd f. 64. 80 â—olls Abrid 356. â—oke 12. 41 〈◊〉 Eadm Hist. in Anselm p. 22. Rolls Abrid 2. 357. C. 16. Q. 2. c. â—ane Ext. de Donat c. Pastor Lyndw. f. 80 Cr. 2. 248. Cr. 2. 274. â—oy 2â— â— Car. 180. â—utton 110. â—nes 220. â—eble 2. 446. Cr. Car. 42â— Cr. Eliz. 789 C. 12. 100. Cr. 2. 385. Noy 25. Bulstrod 3. 90. Hob. 165. Wynch 63. Rep. Chancery 2. 399. 1. Inst. 17. b. Navarr Man c. 23. n. 109. 3. Inst. 156. 1. Inst. 11. 110. b. 115. b.