Vi Laica removenda further explain'd 26. The Writ Quod clerici non eligantur in Officium 1. AGainst the unlawful Possessor who is the Usurper liveth Three Writs viz. One of the Right as the Writ of Right of Advowson and the other two of the Possession viz. A Quare Impedit and Darrein Presentment This Assize of Darrein Presentment or Assisa ultimae Praesentationis is a Writ which lieth where a man or his Ancestor hath presented a Clerk to a Church and after the Church becoming void by his death or otherwise a stranger presents his Clerk to the same Church in disturbance of him who had last presented This Writ is otherwise also used and differs from that of a Quare Impedit for the Quare Impedit lies upon the disturbance of one who hath the Advowson in his Presentation when the Church is void The other lies where a man or his Ancestors had presented before and now the Church becoming void again a stranger presents in disturbance of him who had last presented Where ever a man may have Assize of Darrein Presentment he may have a Quare Impedit but not e contra He that hath right to present after the death of the Parson and bringeth no Quare Impedit nor Darrein Presentment but suffereth a stranger to usurp upon him yet he shall have a Writ of Right of Advowson but this Writ lieth not unless he claim to have the Advowson to him and his heirs in Fee Simple Where the Ordinary Metropolitan or King presents for Lapse any of these Collatives will serve the Patron for a possession in his Assize of Darrein Presentment which Assize of Darrein Presentment may not be purchased pending a Quare Impedit for the same avoidance and therefore in the Case where William St. Andrewes brought a Writ of Assize of Darrein Presentment against the Archbishop of York Mary Countess of Shrewsbury and one Hacker aud the Bishop making default the Countess and Hacker pleaded in Abatement that the Plaintiff before the Writ purchased brought a Quare Impedit against the same Defendants and shews all certain which remains undetermined and averrs that they are both of the same avoidance And upon Demurrer the Writ was abated by Judgment 2. Assize de utrum or Assisa utrum is a writ which lieth for a Parson against a Layman or for a Layman against a Parson for Land and Tenements doubtful whether it be Lay-Fee or Free Almes These Writs are called Assizes probably either because they settle the possession and so an outward Right in him that obtains by them or because they were originally executed at a certain time and place formerly appointed or because they are tryed most commonly by especial Courts set and appointed for that purpose The Incumbent as touching his Right for his Rectory hath the onely Writ of Juris utrum and for his possession any other possessory Action 3. Quare Impedit is a Writ which lieth for him who hath purchased an Advowson in Gross or a Mannor with an Advowson thereunto appendant and against him who when a Parson Incumbent dieth or a Church otherwise becomes void disturbeth the other in the Right of his Advowson by presenting a Clerk thereunto being void Vhis Writ is distinguish'd from the former of Darrein Presentment or Assisa ultimae Praesentationis because this latter lieth as aforesaid onely where a man or his Ancestors formerly presented but the Quare Impedit lies properly for him who himself was the Purchaser of the Advowson though he that may have Assize of Darrein Presentment may have the other if he please but not so Vice versa as was also before observed Yet it is said in Reg. Orig. f. 30. That a Quare Impedit is of a higher Nature than an Assize of Darrein Presentment because it supposeth both a Possession and a Right Which Quare Impedit the Executors of a Testator may as well as himself might have upon a disturbance made to the Presentment and so was the Opinion of the whole Court in Smallwoods Case awainst the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield that the Executors may have a Quare Impedit upon a disturbance made to the Presentation which Writ lieth also of a Chappel Prebend c. And in case after the death of the Ancestor of him that presented his Clerk unto a Church the same Advowson be be assigned in Dower to any Woman or to Tenant by the Courtesie which do present and after the death of such Tenants the very Heir is disturbed to present when the Church is void it is in his election whether he will sue the Writ of Quare Impedit or of Darrein Presentmet the which it seems is also to be observed in Advowsons Demised for term of life or years or in Fee Tail And Dammages shall be awared in both these Writs that is if the time of Six Months pass by the disturbance of any so that the Bishop doth thereby Collate to the Church and the very Patron lose his Presentation for that turn Dammages shall be awarded for two years value of the Church And if the Six Months be not elapsed but the Presentment bederaigned within that time then Dammages shall be awarded to the half years value of the Church And if the disturber hath not wherewith to satisfie the Damages where the Bishop Collateth by lapse of time he shall suffer two years Impisonment and half years imprisonment where the Advowson is deraigned within the half year Likewise he that recovers a Mannor whereunto an Advowson is appentlant being disturbed to present when the Church is void shall have a Quare Impedit In which as also in Assise of Darrein Presentment plenarty of the Defendants or Disturbers party is no plea but two Quare Impedits of one Church and for one avoidance a man cannot have In the Case between the King and the Bishop of Norwich and Saker and Cole it was resolved that when one is admitted instituted and inducted by the presentation of a common person though it was upon an usurpation upon the King yet the King cannot remove the Incumbent without a Q. Impedit brought for the Church is full of him till he be removed Cro. par 2. 4. Ne admittas is a Writ that lieth for the Plaintiff in a Quare Impedit or him that hath an Action of Darrein Presentment depending in the Common Pleas and feareth that the Bishop will admit the Clerk of the Defendant during the dependency of the Suit betwixt them This Writ must be sued within six months next after the Avoidance because after the six months the Bishop may present by the lapse Therefore if the Patron of a Church vacant having or not having any Controversie depending with another touching the right of Presentation doubteth that before he makes his Presentation the Bishop may collate a Clerk of his own or admit a Clerk presented by another to the same Benefice unto
time of King H. 3. Ed. 3. and Ed. 4. they in the Ecclesiastical Court have not any power to intermeddle with the Precinct of Parish-Churches neither are they there to Judge what shall be said to be a mans Parish-Church And so was the Opinion of the whole Court and therefore by the Rule of the Court a Prohibition was granted 41. Touching the Reparations of a Church and who were liable thereunto this being a question coming in debate before the Judges It was Resolved by the whole Court That for and towards the Reparation of a Church the Land of all as well of Foreigners there not inhabiting as of all others is liable thereunto and this is so by the general custome of the place and this is to be raised by a Rate imposed according to the value of the Land and that in the nature of a Fifteen and this is not meerly in the Realty Williams and Yelverton Justices and Flemming Chief Justice Not the Land but the person of him who occupieth the Land is to be charged Yelverton Justice A man is chargeable for Reparations of a Church by reason of the Land and for the Ornaments in the Church by reason of his coming to Church Williams Justice and Flemming Chief Justice If the person have Land there he is chargeable for both whether he come to Church or not for that he may come to Church if he please 42. In a Prohibition the Case was this The Defendant did Libel before the Bishop of London in the Consistory Court for a Seat in the Church Sentence there passed against the Defendant whereupon he Appealed to the Arches The Court was moved for a Prohibition in regard the Title to the Seat or Pew was grounded upon a Prescription The Court answered c. As for the Title we are not here to meddle with it this being for a Seat in the Church Haughton Justice This Disposition of Pews in the Church belongs of right to the order and discretion of the Ordinary and to this purpose is the case of 8 H. 7. fo 12 and Sir William Hall's case against Ellis Doderidge Justice I moved this case in the Court of C. B. and it was for a Seat in the Church An Action there brought for Disturbance and I there cited Hall's case and 9 E. 4. fo 14. The Case of the Grave-Stone and Coat-Armor for the taking of which an Action of Trespass lies at the Common Law and therefore by the same reason an Action of Trespass should lie for such a Disturbance in a Seat of a Church but there the Judges did all of them say That they would not meddle with the deciding of such Controversies for Seats in the Church but would leave the same to them to whom more properly it belonged Croke Justice Hall's case was this where a man did build an entire Isle in the Church and was at continual charge to repair it if he be disturbed in the use of this he shall for this Disturbance have his remedy at the Common Law and so it hath been adjudged But the Judges all said We are not here to meddle with Seats in the Church Doderidge Justice This Appeal here is like unto a Writ of Error at the Common Law but it doth differ in this By the Appeal the first Judgment or Sentence is suspended but after a Writ of Error brought the first Judgment still remains until it be reversed Coke Chief Justice It was Pym's Case in the Common Bench and 8 H. 7. fo 12. that the Ecclesiastical Court hath Jurisdiction and power to dispose of Pews and Seats in the Church But if there be an Isle built by a Gentleman or by a Nobleman and he hath used to Bury there and there hath his Ensigns of Honour as a Grave-stone Coat-Armor or the like which belongs not unto the Parson if he take them the Heir may well have an Action of Trespass Otherwise it is where the same is repaired at the Common charge of the Parish there they have the disposing of them Ellis and Hall's Case remembred a Kentish Case there the Seat was repaired by him and was belonging to his Capital Messuage by Prescription and so triable at the Common Law And so where the Case is Special that the party doth wholly and solely repair the same in such a case if a Suit be there concerning such a Seat a Prohibition well lieth but not otherwise But if a Nobleman comes to dwell in the Countrey he is now within the sole order and dispose of the Ordinary for his Pew and Seat in the Church and upon the former difference was Pym's case adjudged in the C. B. in this principal Case a Prohibition was denied by the whole Court CHAP. XIII Of Churchwardens Questmen and Sidemen 1. What such are in construction of Law how the choice of them is to be made and wherein the Office doth consist 2. What Actions at Law may lie for or against them 3. Whether Actions lie for the New Churchwardens in Trespas done in time of their Predecessors 4. Certain things appertaining to the Church within the charge and office of Churchwardens to provide and preserve 5. Cases in Law touching the Election of Churchwardens 6. What Sidemen or Questmen are and their duty 7. Action at Law against Churchwardens touching Distress taken by them for money for relief of the Poor 8. A Churchwarden refusing to take the Oath of Enquiry on the 39 Articles Action thereon 9. What remedy in case the Archdeacon refuses to Swear the Church-wardens Elect. 10. The Injunctions of King Ed. 6. touching all Marriages Baptisms and Burials to be Registred in the presence of the Churchwardens 11. Whether the Release of one Churchwarden shall be a Bar to his Companion in an Ecclesiastical Suit commenced by them both 12. Prohibition where Churchwardens have pretended a Custome to chuse the Parish-Clerk 13. The like upon a Presentment by Churchwardens against one in matter more proper for a Leet than the Ecclesiastical Court to take cognizance of 14. The prevalency of Custome against a Canon in choice of a Churchwarden in reference to a Vicar and the Parishioners 15. If question be whether Lands next adjoyning unto a Church-yard shall be charged with the repairs of the Fences thereof and Custome pleaded for it in what Court cognizable 16. In Action of Account by Parishioners against Churchwardens by whom a Release of Câ—sts is pleaded but disallowed in the Ecclesiastical Court whether Prohibition lies in that case 17. Whether Churchwardens are a Corporation qualified for Lands as well as Goods to the use of the Church 18. The Churchwardens disposal of Goods belonging to the Church without the assent of the Sidemen or Vestry void 19. Churchwardens not Ecclesiastical Officers but Temporal employed in Ecclesiastical Affairs Before whom are they to Account 20. Whether Churchwardens may have Action for Trespass done to the Church in their Predecessors time 21. Whether the Parishioners by force of a
Custome or the Parson by virtue of a Canon shall chuse the Churchwarden and whether Prohibition lies in that case 22. Whether Churchwardens as a Corporation may prescribe to take Lands to them and their Successors to the use of the Church 1. CHurchwardens or Guardiani Ecclesiae are certain Officers Parochial annually elected or chosen by and with the consent of the Minister and a select number of the chief Parishioners according to the Custome of the place to look to the Church and Church-yard and to take care of the concernments thereof and of such things as appertain thereto as also to observe and have an inspection into the Behaviour Lives and Conversation of their Parishioners touching such faults and disorders as are within the cognizance and censure of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction These Officers are a kind of Corporation enabled to sue and be sued for any matters or things belonging to the Church or Poor of their Parish and have as their Assistants certain Side-men or Questmen who according to the custome of the Parish are yearly likewise chosen to assist the Churchwardens in the Enquiry and presenting such offenders to the Ordinary as are within the Ecclesiastical cognizance and censure aforesaid for which they are not to be sued or troubled at the Law by any such Offenders so presented as aforesaid nor are they obliged to Present oftner than twice a year except it be at the Bishop's Visitation yet they may present as oft as they shall think meet if good occasion shall so require but they may not on pain of being proceeded against by their Ordinaries as in cases of wilful Perjury in Courts Ecclesiastical willingly and wittingly omit to present such publick Crimes as they knew to have been committed or could not be ignorant that there was then a publick same thereof Moreover the Old Churchwardens are to make their Presentments before the New be Sworn till which time the Office of the old continues the usual time for the New Churchwardens to enter upon their Office is the first week after Easter or some week following according to the direction of the Ordinary before which the old Churchwardens shall exhibit the Presentments of such enormities as happened in their Parish since their last Presentments and shall not be suffered to transmit or pass over the same to those that are newly chosen By the Ninetieth Canon the choice of Churchwardens Questmen Sidemen or Assistants is to be yearly made in Easter-week and that by the Joynt-consent of the Minister and the Parishioners if it may be otherwise the Minister to chuse one and the Parishioners another who at their years end or within a month next after shall in the presence of the Minister and the Parishioners make a just Account of what they have received and disbursed for the use of the Church and shall deliver over what remains in their hands belonging to the Church unto the next Churchwardens by Bill Indented 2. One brought Action on the Case against Churchwardens for a false and malicious Presentment of him in the Spiritual Court and found for the Defendants They prayed double Costs on the Statute of 1 Jac. But Jones Crook and Berkley Justices denied it for that the Statute doth not extend to Churchwardens for things of their office in Ecclesiastical Causes They have their Action of Trespass at the Common Law for such things taken away out of the Church as belonged to the Parishioners in reference to the Church And the Release of one of the Churchwardens is no Bar in Law to the other If one take away the Chalice or Surplice out of the Church Action of Trespass lieth against him at Common Law and not in the Ecclesiastical Court So if one lay violent hands on an Ecclesiastical person an Action lies in the Ecclesiastical Court but he shall not there sue for dammages If the Organs or Parish-Bible or the like be taken away out of the Church the Action lies at the Common Law and not in the Spiritual Court for the same for the Churchwardens may have their Action at Common Law in that case But if the Parson take away out of the Church the Scutcheon or Banner of some person deceased his Widow if she did put it there and it be taken away in her life time may have her Action of Trespass at Common Law or after her decease the Heir may have the same Action 3. Trespass brought by the Churchwaâ—dens of F. and declared That the Defendant took a Bell out of the said Church and that the Trespass was done 20 Eliz. It was found for the Plaintiffs It was moved in Arrest of Judgment that it appears by the Declaration That the Trespass was done in the time of their Predecessors of which the Successor cannot have Action and Actio personalis moritur cum persona Vid. 19 H. 6. 66. But the old Churchwardens shall have the Action Coke contrary and that the present Church-wardens shall have the Action and that in respect of their Office which the Court granted And by Gawdy Churchwardens are a Corporation by the Common Law Vid. 12 H. 7. 28. by Frowick That the New Churchwardens shall not have an Action upon such a Trespass done to their Predecessors Contrary by Yaxley Vid. by Newton and Paston That the Executors of the Guardian in whose time the Trespass was done shall have Trespass 4. It is the duty of Churchwardens not only to take care of the Concernments of the Church and to present Disorders as aforesaid but also to provide Bread and Wine against the Communion the Bible of the largest Volume the Book of Common Prayer a decent Pulpit a Chest for Alms Materials for repairing the Church and fencing the Church-yard and the like all at the Parish-charge and shall what in them lies prevent the prophanation of Churches by any usage thereof contrary to the Canons It was agreed by the Court in Robert's case That a Tax for the Church cannot be made by the Churchwardens only Hetley's Rep. 5. In Butt's Case Moore Serjeant moved at Court for a Prohibition because where the custome of the Parish or Village was that the Parishioners have used to elect two Churchwardens and at the end of the year to discharge one and elect another in his room and so alternis vicibus c. By the New Canon now the Parson hath the Election of one and the Parish of the other and that he that was elected by the Parishioners was discharged by the Ordinary at his Visitation and for that he prayed a Prohibition Et allocat as a thing usual and of course For otherwise by Hubbard the Parson might have all the Authority of his Church and Parish The like Case to this we have elsewhere reported viz. The Parson and Church-wardens in London by the Custome are a Corporation and the Parishioners time out of mind c. have used at a
The Plaintiff declared that the Rectory of St. Peters infra Turrim London was void and that the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff would bestow his labour and endeavour to cause or procure him to be Rector of the said Rectory promised to give him Twenty pounds and that after the said Plaintiff procured him to be Rector by the Kings Commission and notwithstanding that he had requir'd him to pay the said Twenty pounds c. and thereupon he brought his Action upon the Case in the Court of the Tower of London and upon Non Assumpsit it was found for the Plaintiff and Judgement was there given upon which the Defendant brought Error and una voce all agreed that the Judgement was erroneous for the consideration was Simoniacal and against Law and not a good consideration therefore the Assumpsit was not good the Judgement was revers'd the Atturney said that that Court was a Court-baron as appears by a Record in the time of King Henry the Sixth 8. If A. be obliged to present B. c. and he presents by Simony yet the obligation is forfeited Or if one contract with the Patrons Wife to be presented for Money and is accordingly presented by her Husband it is Simony within the Stat. of 31 Eliz and makes the presentation void For the contract of the Wife is the contract of the Husband Likewise if the Patron present one to the Advowson having taken an Obligation of the Presentee that he shall resign when the Obligee will after Three months warning this is Simony within the Stat. of 21 Eliz. cap. 16. per Curiam Also if one promises to a Man that hath a Mannor with an Advowson appendant that if he will present him c. after the then Incumbents death he will give him such a certain Sum of Money and the other agree thereto and that by agreement between them the next avoidance shall be granted to B c. who after the then Incumbents death presents accordingly this is Simony because there was a corrupt Contract for the Advowson For although the next avoidance may be bought and sold bona fide without Simony yet if it be granted to one to perform a corrupt Contract for the same it is otherwise But if the Father purchase the next avoidance and after the Incumbents death presents his Son this is not Simony Yet by Hob. Chief Justice it was held that if in the grant of the next avoidance it appears that it was to the intent to present his Son or his Kinsman and it was done accordingly it is Simony Likewise if a Mans Friend promises the Grantee of the next avoidance a certain Sum of Money and so much certain per Annum if he will present B. to the Church Quando c. and B. not knowing any thing of the Contract be presented accordingly this is Simony For if a Stranger contract with the Patron Simonaically it makes the presentation void 9. A Patron took an Obligation of the Clerk whom he presented that he should pay Ten pounds yearly to the Son of the last Incumbent so long as he should be a Student in Cambridge unpreferr'd this is not Simony otherwise if it had been to have paid it to the Patrons Son per Cur. An Obligation was made by a Presentee to a Patron to pay Five pounds per An. to the late Incumbents Wife and Children the Parson kept and enjoyed the Parsonage notwithstanding great opposition to the contrary 10. A Parson preferr'd his Bill for Tithes the Parishioner pleaded that he was presented by corruption c. and by Simony and a Prohibition was granted notwithstanding the Parson pleaded pardon of the Simony by the King and it seem'd that it was now triable by the Common Law The Church may be full or void in effect when there is a Simoniacal Incumbent yet to say the Church was full for Six Months is no plea when he was in by Simony For a Quare Impedit may be had by the rightful Patron after the Six Months against the Incumbent of an usurper that is in by Simony And the death of a Simoniacal Incumbent doth not hinder but that the King may present for the Church was never full as to the King and that turn is presented to the King by force of the Statute 11. In the Stat. of 31 Eliiz there is no word of Simony for by that means then the Common Law would have been Judge what should have been Simony and what not by which Law the Simoniack is perpetually disabled And a Covenant to present such a one made under any consideration whatever be it of Marriage or the like may be Simoniacal But if a Father in Law upon the Marriage of his Daughter do only voluntarily and without any consideration Covenant with his Son in Law that when such a Church which is in his Gift falls void he will present him to it It hath been held that this is no Simony within the said Statute 12. A Simoniacal Usurper presenting shall not prejudice the rightful Patron by giving the King the presentation The proof of Simony will avoid an Action of Tithes commenced by a Simoniack Parson who dying in possession of the Church the King loses not his presentation because the Church was not full of an Incumbent but remains void though the Simony or Penalty thereof were pardoned y Lastly all corrupt resignations and exchanges of Ecclesiastical Livings are punishable with the forfeiture of double the Sum given and received both in Giver and Taker by the said Statute but it seems this works no avoidance or disability in the publick person 13. The Patron of an Advowson before the Statute of 31. Eliz. for Simony doth sell proximam Advocationem for a sum of money to one Smith and he sells this to Smith the Incumbent After which comes the general Pardon of the Queen wherby the punishment of Smith the Incumbent is pardoned and of Smith the Patron also If the Incumbent may be removed was the Question Williams said that the Doctors of the Civil Law informed him That the Law Spiritual was that for Simony the Patron lost his Presentation and the Ordinary shall present and if he present not within six montehs then the Metropolitan and then the King Spurling Serjeant This punishment cannot discharge the Forfeiture although it dischargeth the punishment Glanvil contra and said that this point was in question when the Lord Keeper was Atturney and then both of them consulted thereupon and they made this diversity viz. Between a thing void and voidable and for Simony the Church is not void until Sentence Declaratory and therefore they held that by the Pardon before the Sentence all is pardoned as where a man committs Felony and before Conviction the King pardons him by this Pardon the Lord shall lose his Escheat for the Lord can have no Escheat
been only a reviver of an Ancient power which had been formerly invested in his Predecessors and in all other Christian Princes If we consult the Records of elder Times it will readily appear not only that the Roman Emperours of the House of France did Nominate the Popes themselves but that after they had lost that power they retained the Nomination of the Bishops in their own Dominions The like done also by the German Emperours by the Kings of England and by the Ancient Kings of Spain The Investure being then performed per Annulum Baculum that is by delivering of a Ring together with a Crosier or Pastoral Staff to the party nominated 22. By Ancient Right the Bishops of London are accounted Deans of the Episcopal Colledge and being such are by their place to signifie the pleasure of their Metropolitan to all the Bishops of the Province to execute his Mandates and disperse his Missives on all emergency of Affairs As also to preside in Convocations or Provincial Synods during the vacancy of the See or in the necessary absence of the Metropolitan 23. In O Brian and Knivan's Case the Case was That King Ed. 6. under his Privy Seal signified to Sir J. C. and to the Lord Chancellor and others in Ireland That he elected and appointed J. B. to be Bishop of Ossory Requiring them to Instal him in the Bishoprick The Deputy being removed the Chancellor and the other made a Commission under the Great Seal of Ireland to the Bishop of Dublin to Consecrate him which was done accordingly and he did his Fealty and recovered the Temporalties out of the Kings hands Afterwards in the life of J. B. Queen Mary elected J. T. to be Bishop there who was likewis◠Consecrated and who made a Lease of divers Lands of the Bishoprick for 101 years which was confirmed by the Dean and Chapter J. B. died and after J. T. died J. W. was elected Bishop The Questions in the Case were 1. Whether J. B. was well created Bishop 2. Whether this Lease made by J. T. being Bishop de facto but not de jure in the life of J. B. he surviving J. B. should be good to bind the Successor Resolved The Commission was well executed although the Deputy Sir J. C. were removed 2. Resolved That before the Statute of 2 Eliz. the King might by Patent without a Writ of Congé d'eslire create a Bishop for that was but a Form or Ceremony 3. Resolved That although J. T. was Bishop de facto in the life of J. B. that the Lease made by him for 101 years was void though it was confirmed by the Dean and Chapter and should not bind the Successor But all Judicial Acts made by him as Admissions Institutions c. should be good but not such voluntary Acts as tended to the depauperation of the Successor A Bishop made a Lease for three Lives not warranted by the Statute of 1 Eliz. rendring Rent the Successor accepted the Rent It was Resolved It should bind him during his time so as he shall not avoid the Lease which otherwise was voidable CHAP. IV. Of the Guardian of the Spiritualties 1. What the Office of such a Guardian is and by whom Constituted 2. The power of such Guardians in vacancy of Archbishopricks 3. What Remedy in case they refuse to grant such Licenses or Dispensations as are legally grantable 4. Who is Guardian of the Spiritualties of Common Right 5. What things a Guardian of the Spiritualties may do 1. GVardian of the Spiritualties Custos Spiritualium vel Spiritualitatis is he to whom the Spiritual Jurisdiction of any Diocess during the vacancy of the See is committed Dr. Cowell conceives that the Guardian of the Spiritualties may be either Guardian in Law or Jure Magistratus as the Archbishop is of any Diocess within his Province or Guardian by Delegation as he whom the Archbishop or Vicar General doth for the time depute Guardian of c. by the Canon Law pertains to the Appointment of the Dean and Chapter c. ad abolend Extr. Nè sede vacante aliquid innovetur But with us in England to the Archbishop of the Province by Prescription Howbeit according to Mr. Gwin in the Preface to his Readings divers Deans and Chapters do challenge this by Ancient Charters from the Kings of this Realm Cowell verb. Custos This Ecclesiastical Office is specially in request and indeed necessarily in the time of the Vacancy of the Episcopal See or when the Bishop is in remotis agendis about the publick Affairs of the King or State at which time Presentations must be made to the Guardian of the Spiritualties which commonly is the Dean and Chapter or unto the Vicar General who supplies the place and room of the Bishop And therefore if a man Recover and have Judgment for him in a Quare Impedit and afterwards the Bishop who is the Ordinary dieth In this case the Writ to admit the Clerk to the Benefice must be directed to the Guardian of the Spiritualties Sede vacante to give him Admission But if before his Admission another be created Bishop of that See and Consecrated Bishop in that case the power of the Guardian of the Spiritualties doth cease and the party may have a new Writ to the new Bishop to admit his Clerk A Guardian of the Spiritualties may admit a Clerk but he cannot confirm a Lease 2. The Guardian of the Spiritualties takes place as well in the vacancy of Archbishopricks as Bishopricks and hath power of granting Licenses Dispensations and the like during such Vacancies by the Statute of 25 H. 8. whereby it is provided and enacted That if it happen the See of the Archbishop of Canterbury to be void that then all such Licenses Dispensations Faculties Instruments Rescripts and other Writings which may be granted by virtue of the said Act shall during such vacation of the said See be had done and granted under the Name and Seal of the Guardian of the Spiritualties of the said Archbishoprick according to the tenor and form of the said Act and shall be of like force value and effect as if they had been granted under the Name and Seal of the Archbishop for the time being Where it is also further enacted 3. That if the said Guardian of the Spiritualties shall refuse to grant such Licenses Dispensations Faculties c. to any person that ought upon a good just and reasonable cause to have the same then and in such case the Lord Chancellor of England or the Lord Keeper of the Great Seal upon any complaint thereof made may direct the Kings Writ to the said Guardian of the Spiritualties during such Vacancy as aforesaid refusing to grant such Licenses c. enjoyning him by the said Writ under a certain penalty therein limited at the discretion of the said Lord Chancellor or Lord Keeper that he shall in due form grant such License Dispensation Faculty
The Statute of 13 El. cap. 12. Ordained That the Articles agreed by the Archbishop and Bishops of both Provinces and all the Clergy in the Convocation held at London c. shall be read by the Incumbent otherwise he is ipso facto deprived Or admitting all these Requisites have had their due performance so that he is a compleat Parson to all intents and purposes of Law whatever yet he may not under pretence of this or that Custome extend the Lines of his Parsonage beyond its due limits or bounds out of an Avaricious design to advance the perquisites of his Parsonage 5. Edward Topsall Clerk Parson of St. Botolphs without Aldersgate London and the Churchwardens of the same Libelled in the Ecclesiastical Court against Sir John Ferrers and alledged that there was a Custome within the City of London and specially within that Parish That if any person being Man or Woman die within that Parish and be carried out of the Parish to be Buried elsewhere that in such case there ought to be paid to the Parson of this Parish if he or she be buried elsewhere in the Chancel so much and to the Churchwardens so much being the Sums that they alledged were by Custome payable unto them for such as were buried in their own Chancel And then alledging that the Wife of Sir John Ferrers died within the Parish and was carried away and buried in the Chancel of another Church and so demanded of him the said Sum. Whereupon for Sir John Ferrers a Prohibition was prayed by Serjeant Harris and upon debate it was granted For this Custome is against Reason That he that is no Parishioner but may pass through the Parish or lie in an Inne for a night should if he then die be forced to be Buried there or to pay as if he were and so upon the matter to pay twice for his Burial 6. The words Parsonage Church and Rectory are frequently in the Law used Synonymously and promiscuously but the word Advowson is another thing and distinct from each of them And as to some Parsonages there are certain Rents due and payable so out of some Parsonages or Rectories there are issuing certain Rents or Pensions which Pensions are not suable at the Common Law but in the Ecclesiastical Court as was said in Crocker and York's Case against Dormer against whom they had a Recovery in a Writ of Entry in the Post among other things of a yearly Rent or Pension of four Marks issuing out of the Church or Rectory of F. In which Case it was agreed by Clench and Fenner that a Pension issuing out of a Rectory is the same with the Rent of which Popham seemed to make some doubt for there being in that Case a Demand for Rent in the Disjunctive viz. a Rent or Pension he moved that the greatest difficulty in the Case was the Demand made in the Disjunctive viz. of an Annual Rent or Pension for if a Pension issuing out of a Rectory shall be said to be a thing meerly Spiritual and not to be demanded by the Common Law or meerly of another nature than the Rent it self with which it is there conjoyn'd by the word or that then it is Erroneous 7. B. brought an Action of Debt against W. upon an Obligation of 600 l. the Condition was That if W. Resign a Benefice upon Request that then the Obligation should be void And the Condition was Entered the Defendant Demurred and Judgment in B. R. pro Querente And upon Error brought Judgment was Affirmed in the Exchequer for this Obligation is not voidable by the Statute of 14 Eliz. which makes Obligations of the same force as Leases made by Parsons of their Glebes viz. per Non-Residency And it doth not appear by the Plea of the Defendant that it was not an Obligation bona fide which might be lawful As if a Patron which hath a Son which is not yet fit to be presented for default of Age and he present another with an Agreement that when his Son come to the Age of 24 years he shall Resign it it is a good Obligation And this Case viz. an Obligation with Condition to Resign had been Adjudged good in the Case of one Jones An. 8 Jac. And the Counsel said That he who is presented to a Church is Married thereto and it is like as if a man who hath married a Wife should be bound to be divorced from her or not cohabit with her these Conditions are void But these resemble not our Case 8. It was said in Johnson's Case That if a Parson Leases his Rectory for years or parcel of his Glebe reserving a Rent and dies if his Successor accepts the Rent that Acceptance does not make the Lease good because by his death the Franktenement is in Abeyance and in no Man And also a Parson cannot Discontinue And by consequence That that he did without Livery is determined by his death And it is not like to the Case of an Abbot Prior or Tenant in Tail 9. Hendon moved for Dr. Clay Vicar of Hallifax That a Prohibition might be granted to the High Commissioners of York for that that these Articles by one Smith were exhibited against him viz. 1. That he read the Holy Bible in an irreverent and undecent manner to the scandal of the whole Congregation 2. That he did not do his duty in Preaching but against his Oath and the Ecclesiastical Canon had neglected for sundry Mornings to Preach 3. That he took the Cups and other Vessels of the Church consecrated to holy use and employed them in his own House and put Barm in the Cups that they were so polluted that the Communicants of the Parish were loath to drink out of them 4. That he did not observe the last Fast Proclaimed upon the Wednesday but on the Thursday because it was an Holy-day 5. That he retained one Stepheson in one of the Chappels of Ease who was a man of ill Life and Conversation viz. an Adulterer and a Drunkard 6. That he did not Catechize according to the Parish-Canon but only bought many of Dr. Wilkinson's Catechisms for every of which he paid 2 d. and sold them to the Parishioners for 3 d. without any examination or instruction for their benefit And that he when any Commissions were directed to him to compel any person in his Parish to do Penance he exacted money of them and so they were dismissed without inflicting any penalty upon them as their Censure was And that he and his Servants used divers Menaces to his Parishioners and that he abused himself and disgraced his Function by divers base Labours viz. He made Mortar having a Leathern-Apron before him and he himself took a Tithe-Pigg out of the Pigsty and afterwards he himself gelded it And when he had divers Presents sent him as by some Flesh by some Fish and by others Ale he did not spend it in the invitation of his Friends and Neighbours or
may have a Writ of Right of Advowson but this Writ lieth not for him unless he claim to have the Advowson to him and his Heirs in Fee-simple which Advowson is valuable though the Presentment be not 18. The Queen seized of an Advowson being void the Ancestor of P. Presented and so gained it by Usurpation and then the Church being void he Presented again his Clerk dies and then the Queen grants the Advowson to Y. the Plaintiff who brings a Quare Impedit in the Queens Name supposing that this Usurpation did not put the Queen out of Possession It was argued That the Grant could not pass without special words because it is in the nature of a Chose in Action And Dyer Mead and Windham held That this Usurpation did gain possession out of the Queen and that she should be put to her Writ of Right of Advowson but the Opinion of Anderson Cheif Justice was clearly That the Queen was not out of Possession for he said That it was a Rule in our Books that of a thing which is of Inheritance the act of a Common person will not put the Queen out of possession But if she had only a Chattel as the next Advowson then perhaps it is otherwise But Mead and Windham very earnestly held the contrary relying on the Book of 18 E. 3. where Shard said That if the King had an Advowson in his own Right and a Stranger who had no Right happen to Present it puts the King out of Possession And the King shall be put to his Writ of Right as others shall The Defendant alledged Two Presentations in his Ancestor after the Title of the King and demanded Judgment if the King should have a Writ of Possession and the Plea was admitted to be good But after Pasch 25 Eliz. Judgment was given for the Queen for that she might very well maintain a Quare Impedit and the two Presentments did not put her out of possession 19. In a Quare Impedit by G. against the Bishop of L. and D. Incumbent The Case was That a Mannor with the Advowson Appendant was in the hands of the King and the Church became void and the King grants the Mannor with the Advowson If the Grantee shall have the Presentation or the King was the question All the Justices held clearly That the Avoidance would not pass because it was a Chattel vested And Periam said that in case of a Common person without question an Advowson appendant would not pass by such Grant for if the Father die it shall go to his Executor but if it be an Advowson in Gross in case of a Common person there is some doubt But in the Principal Case all the Judges held ut supra and said That so it was in 9 E. 3. 26. Quare Impedit 31. and in Dyer in the Case of the Church of Westminster But F. N. B. is contrary 33. N. 20. Of Advowsons there are three Original Writs whereof one is a Writ of Right the other two of Possession viz. Darrein Presentment and Quare Impedit And where an Advowson descendeth unto Parceners though one Present twice and usurpeth upon his Co-heir yet he that was negligent shall not be clearly barr'd but another time shall have his turn to Present when it falleth And by the Statute of 3 Jac. 5. every Recusant Convict is utterly disabled to Present to any Ecclesiastical Living or to Collate or Nominate to any Donative whatsoever the Advowson of every such Recusant being left to the disposition of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge Also by the Statute of 13 E. 1. 5. it is directed what Action shall be maintained by him in the Reversion who is disturbed to Present after the Expiration of a particular Estate where there is also provided a Remedy for him in the Reversion or Remainder or others that have right where there is an Usurpation of an Advowson during any particular Estate And that Judgments given in the Kings Courts touching Advowsons shall not be avoided by Surmizes but by lawful means Likewise it is Statute-Law to hold That Advowsons shall not pass from the King but by Special words for when the King doth give or grant Land or a Mannor with the Appurtenances unless he make express mention in his Deed of Advowsons of Churches when they fall belonging to such Mannor or Land they are reserved to him notwithstanding the word Appurtenances albeit among Common persons it hath been otherwise observed nor is it lawful to purchase an Advowson during the dependancy of a Suit at Law concerning the same 21. If a Feme Covert be seized of an Advowson and the Church becomes void and the Wife dieth the Husband shall Present Where Parson and Vicar be Endowed in one Church and the Vicarage becomes void the question is To whom the Advowson of the Vicarge doth belong and who in that case shall be said to be the Patron of the Vicarage Whether the Patron of the Parsonage or the Parson It seems the Books at Common Law the Judges and the Court were divided in Opinion touching this point some of the Judges were of Opinion That the Advowson of the Vicarage appertains to the Parson Others that it belongs to the Patron Such as inclined that it is in the Patron gave for reason That the Ordinary cannot make a Vicar without the assent of the Patron 5 E. 2. Quare Impedit 165. puts the Case That although the Vicarage be Endowed with the assent of the Patron and Ordinary yet the Advowson of the Vicarage doth remain in the Parson because the same is parcel of the Advowson of the Parsonage And 16. E. 3. Grants 56. it was a question Whether by the Grant of the Advowson of the Church the Advowson of the Vicarage did pass and there it was said by Stone That it doth pass as Incident to the Parsonage And in regard the Vicar is as the Parsons Substitute and his Endowment originally only as a Maintenance for him in officiating the Cure for the case of the Parson whose Concern it is to see that he be a fit and able person sufficient for the Cure it should thence seem rational that the Parson should be his Patron to Present such an one to the Vicarage as shall be sufficient for the Cure for which reasons the Patronage of the Vicarage should seem rather to belong unto the Parson than to the First Patron of the Parsonage Appropriate 22. An Advowson cannot it seems at the Common Law be called a Demesne for that it is not such a thing as a man hath a Manual occupation or possession of as he hath of Lands Tenements and Rents whereof he may say in his Pleading That he was seized thereof in his Demesn as of Fee which he cannot say that hath only the Advowson of a Church because it lies not as the other in Manual occupation And therefore in the case
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
Form thereof according to the Canon Law what required of the Clerk in order thereto and his Remedy in case the Ordinary denies him such Institution as he may claim by Law 9. Matters of Institution properly cognizable in the Ecclesiastical Courts yet in certain Cases not exclusively to the Common Law or Temporal Jurisdiction 10. Institution gives the Parson jus ad rem not jus in re 11. Whether Institution without Induction works a Plenaâ—ty also whether it be good being Sealed with another Seal and done out of the proper Diocess The difference between the Common Law and the Canon Law as to a Coveat entered before Institution 12. Whether Suit may be in the Ecclesiastical Court to remove an Incumbent after Induction 13. Whether the First-Fruits be due upon the Institution before Induction 14. A Case at Common Law touching Resignation and whether it may be made Conditionally 15. A Case touching the Rightful Patron 's Presentation after the Induction of another by Vsurpation 16. What Induction is and the Bishop's Order therein 17. Induction is a Temporal not Spiritual Act In what manner it is to be executed 18. A Caveat entered in the Life-time of an Incumbent is void 19. In what Case an Induction made by a Minister not resident within the Archdeaconry may be good 20. Institution to a Minor and Vnder-age is meerly void 21. Whether after Induction the Institution may be questioned in the Ecclesiastical Court 22. Whether Incumbency be triable only at Common Law 23. In what Court the validity of Induction is determinable 1. EXamination is that Trial or Probation which the Bishop or Ordinary makes before his Admission of any person to holy Order or to a Benefice touching the qualification of such persons for the same respectively So that there are Two certain times or seasons especially wherein this Examination is required the one before an Admission to Holy Orders the other before an Admission to a Benefice The former of these is expresly enjoyned by the 35th Canon Ecclesiastical whereby it is required That the Bishop before he Admit any person to Holy Orders shall diligently Examine him in the presence of those Ministers that shall assist him at the Imposition of hands or in case of any lawful Impediment of the Bishop then the said Examination shall be carefully performed by the said Ministers provided they be of the Bishops Cathedral Church if conveniently it may otherwise by at least Three sufficient Preachers of the same Diocess And in case any Bishop or Suffragan shall Admit any to Sacred Orders who is not Examined as is before ordained then shall the Archbishop of the Province having notice thereof and being assisted with one Bishop suspend the said Bishop or Suffragan from making either Deacons or Priests for the space of Two years So also when the Clerk is Presented by the Patron of the Advowson before he be Admitted as Clerk to serve the Cure the Ordinary is to Examine him of his Ability For if upon his Examination he be found unable to serve the same or be Criminous the Ordinary may refuse to Admit and Institute him into the Benefice By the Ancient Cannons the Bishop hath Two months time to enquire and inform himself of the sufficiency and quality of every Clerk Presented to him as appears by the Canon in 1 Jac. cap. 95. But by the said Canon it is Ordained That the said Two months shall be abridged to 28 days only Upon sufficient enquiry and Examination the Ordinary may accept or refuse the Clerk Presented and regularly all such matters as are causes of Deprivation are also causes of Refusal but for a Presentce to have another Benefice is no cause of Refusal for that is at his own peril and possibly the Second Benefice is more worth than the former which only is void in such case 2. If the Bishop doth demand of the Clerk his Letters of Orders and Letters Testimonial of his good behaviour and the Clerk requires time to shew them as the space of a week or the like because he hath them not there with him and the Bishop doth thereupon Refuse him to the Church and Presents another the Bishop in such case hath been adjudged to be a Disturber for the Statute of 13 Eliz. doth not compel the Clerk to shew his Orders nor Letters Testimonial of his good Behaviour And so it was Adjudged Yet by the 39th Canon it is by way of Caution expresly Ordained That no Bishop shall Institute any of a Benefice who hath been Ordained by any other Bishop except he first shew unto him his Letters of Orders and bring him a sufficient Testimony of his former good life and behaviour if the Bishop shall require it 3. Examination of the Clerk is to be done at a convenient time within the Six months for the Ordinary cannot refuse to Examine the Clerk during all the Six months and so suffer a Lapse to incurr to himself for by so doing the Patron should lose his Presentation and the Ordinary take advantage of his own wrong But if the Ordinary when the Clerk comes to be examined Sedet circa curam Pastoralem he is not then obliged to leave the business in hand and presently Examine the Clerk but he may appoint a convenient time and place for the Examining of him This Examination by the Diocesan touching the Conversation and Ability of such as were ordained to Peach the Word of God or Presented to a Benefice is enjoyned by the Provincial Constitutions Lindw de Haereticis cap. 1. 4. A Quare Impedit was brought by B. against the Bishop of Rochester who pleads that he claims nothing but as Ordinary and yet pleads further That the Clerk which the Plaintiff Presented had before contracted with the Plaintiff Simmiacally and therefore because he was Simoniacus he refused and that the Church was then void and so remained void whereupon the Plaintiff had a Writ to the Archbishop of Canterbury who returned that before the coming of this Writ viz. 4. July the Church was Full of one Dr. Grant ex Collatione of the said Bishop of Rochester who had Collated by Lapse and this Return was adjudged Insufficient First it is clear That though the Six months pass yet if the Patron Present the Bishop ought to Admit although it be after the Title devolved unto the Metropolitan And it seems also Reason that he ought to Admit though that the Title by Lapse be accrued to the King for he claims it as Supream Ordinary Vid. Dyer 277. quaere But in this Case the Bishop who is the Defendant is bound by the Judgment and the Writ is notwithstanding the claim of the Bishop that he Admit the Clerk for the Bishop ought to execute the Process of the Court It was urged by Serjeant Henden that there is a Canon in Lindwood That if the Church be vacant when the Writ comes to the Bishop that he is bound to execute
alter not the Prescription And he cited a Cause which was in this Court argued at Barr and afterwards at Bench between Cooper and Andrews Mich. 10 Jac. Rot. 1023. for the Park of Cowhurst Vid. 32 E. 1. Fitz. Avowry 240. 5 E. 2. Fitz. Annuity 44. 20 E. 4. 14. 14 E. 4. 4. But this Case was adjudged for the Plaintiff Quod stet Prohibitio and that which is by the name of Park is for the Land and is annexed to the Land by the name of Park if the Prescription had been to pay a Buck or a Doe out of the Park then it would alter the Case But it is general and had been paid also after the Park disparked And the Case of Cooper and Andrews was a shoulder of every third Deer that was killed in the Park and two shillings in money and that Case was never Adjudged 32. V. brought Trespass against T. Clerk Vicar of A. for taking Bona Catalla and count for the taking of two Carectac glaci Anglicè Wood And upon Not guilty pleaded the Jury gave this Special Verdict viz. for the Moity of a Load of Wood Si videbitur Curiae quod Decimae glaci ne sunt Minutae Decimae then the Defendant Not guilty but Si sunt Minutae Decimae then he is Guilty This Case was argued at Barr by Bridgman and Henden Serjeants And the Court Vnement agreed That for ought that here appears this Verdict being found without any Circumstance that this Wood shall be taken to be Minutae Decimae It was agreed by Henden That if it had been found Wood growing in a Garden then Minutae Decimae And it was agreed by the Court That it might have been so found that it should be Majores Decimae and Praedial as if all the profits of the Parsonage consist of such Tithes And so of other things which in their own nature are Minutae may become Majores if all the profit of the Parish consist therein As in some Countries a great part of the Land within the Parish is Hemp or Lime or Hâ—ps there they are Great Tithes and so it may be of Wool and Lambs Pasch 3 Jac. B. R. in Beddingfield's Case Farmer to the Dean and Chapter of Norwich who had the Parsonage Impropriate and had used to have Tithes of Grain and Hay and the Vicar had the Small Tithes And a Field of 40 Acres was planted with Saffron and it was Adjudged That the Tithes thereof belong to the Vicar There was a Case in this Court as it was vouched by Henden 3 Jac. between Potman a Knight and another And the Question was for Hops in Kent and Adjudged that they were great Tithes but as for Hops in Orchards or Gardens these were Resolved to belong to the Vicar â—s small Tithes There was a Case in this Court for Tithe of Weild which is used for Dying and that was in Kent and it was sown with the Corn and after the Corn is reaped the next year without any other manurance the said Land brings forth and produces Weild And that was a Special Verdict whether the Vicar shall have the Tithe of it or the Parson but one of the parties died before any Judgment And if Tobacco be planted here yet the Tithes thereof are Minutae Decimae And all these new things viz. Saffron Hops Weild c. if it doth not appear by material Circumstances to the contrary shall be taken as Minutae Decimae And so this Case was Adjudged for the Defendant 33. In the Case of a Prohibition in case of a Libel in the Ecclesiastical Court for the Tithes of Cattels the Plaintiff alledged that those Cattel of which Tithes were demanded are for his Dairy and for the Plough and Winch being only present said That the Parson shall not have Tithes of such Cattel but if he breed up Cattel to sell it is otherwise Secondly the Plaintiff in the Prohibition alledged That time beyond memory the Parishioners had paid a halâ—â—â—â—or the Tithe of a Calf and a peny for a Cow and that upon a day limited they use to bring this to the Church and to pay this to the Vicar and now the Vicar had Libelled in the Ecclesiastical Court against them to compel them to bring it home to his housâ— And Winch said That this is no occasion of a Prohibition for they agree in the Mâ—dus but vary in the place of payment and this is not matter of substance and for that reason no Prohibition will lie 34. B. brought a Prohibition against C. and alledged that the Dean and Chapter of D. was seized of the Mannor and the Defendant being Vicâ—r sued in the Ecclesiastical Court to have Tithes and shewed that time beyond Memory c. they had held that Discharged of Tithes for them and their Tenants and that they lett that to the Plaintiff And it was moved by Henden Serjeant That the Dean and Chapter are a Body Politick and Temporal which are not capable of this Prescription in non Decimando Coke 2. the Bishop of Winchester's Case Hobart said That the Dean and Chapter are a Body Spiritual and are annexed to the Bishop throughout all England and if the Bishop is capable of that as it is plain he is then the Dean and Chapter is also capable of that which was granted by Hutton but Winch doubted for he said That he-may be a Lay-man and for that the Plaintiff ought to averr That he is a Spiritual person Hutton confessed That the Dean may be a Lay-man as was the Dean of Durham by special License and Dispensation of the King but that is rare and a Special Case and is not common and general and therefore not to be brought as an Example which was also granted by Hobart Chief Justice and upon that day was given over to the Defendant to shew cause wherefore the Prohibition shall not be granted 35. A. Libelled against W. in the Ecclesiastical Court for the Herbâ—ge-Tithe of young Cattel sâ—il for a peny for every one And Hitcham moved for a Prohibition and said that he ought not to have Tithes if they are young Beasts brought up for the Cart or Plough And so it hath been Adjudged As it a Parson prescribe to have Tithes for Hedgingstuff he cannot because that preserves the Land out of which he had Tithes and then a Parson Libels for Tithes of an Orchard for that it was a young Orchard and the Custome of the place was to pay 4 d. for an Orchard Hitcham said There is not any such difference between old and new Orchards for iâ— the Custome be that he shall pay 4 d. for every Orchard it will reach to the new Orchard And then he Libels for a Hearth-peny for the Wood burnt in his house Hutten said The Hearth-peny is more doubtful for it is a Custome in the North parts to give an Hearth-peny for Estovers burnt for
Rule for the Judges in that Court to proceed also And then the Plaintiff may if he will have a new Prohibition against the Executors c. 46. In Norton's Case Finâ—h Recorder said de Communi jure for Estovers burnt in an House Tithes ought not to be paid by the Common Law there was not any Tithes paid for Wood And although the Statute of 25 E. 3. gives a Prohibition for Timber yet Vnder-woods were discharged of Tithes Vid. Dr Stud. 171. It is express that Estovers are not Tithable because they are not renewing every year and it is parcel of the Inheritance for to destroy all the Underwoods is Waste c. Dawley's Case was Resolved for the Wild of Sussex and Mich. 13 Jac. B. R. in the Case of Porter and Dyke for the Wild of Kent of the same Prescription Resolved to be good and so is the Common Experience that a whole County may Prescribe so And the reason is for that by the Common Law it was not due but by the Constitution of Winchelsey Lindwood 104. it was Ordained to be paid for then the Prelates imputed a great Pestilence that then was for the negligence of paying Tithes and appointed Tithes of Wood. And the Commons were desirous to have the Statute of Sylva c. otherwise explained than the Clergy declares it for they say that they ought not to pay Tithes of any Wood that is of the growth of ten years Hutton Wood is Tithable in their nature and then there may be a Custome to discharge them And the Case of Hearthpeny cannot be answered for if he Sues for the peny a Prohibition shall not be granted quod concessum fuit per Crook Yelverton But of things not Tithable Tithes of them cannot be sued without alledging a Custome Crook It is known that Hearthpeny is good by Prescription This Case is when there is not Land belonging to the House so that the Parson is not answered for his Tithes another way But when there are Ten Servants kept for the maintaining it then by the Law of the Land it appears that Tithes ought not to be paid although Custome had been alledged it is nothing to the purpose As if a Custome be alledged to pay 4 d. for every Acre in discharge of Tithes and the Verdict find 3 d. no Consultation shall be granted Hutton the Herbage of Barren Cattel is Tithable because there is a Custome which discharges those that are for the Cart. And he said That the Custome only makes that Legem terrae And he cited Dr. Grauut's Case He Libels for Tithes of a House and the party brought a Prohibition and alledged Modum Decimandi c. And it was alledged in Arrest of Judgment that Houses were not Tithable de Communi jure and yet a Consultation was granted c. 47. A Case between Stone and Walsingham having been formerly in the Court touching Tithes the Case was again moved in Court which was that they agreed de anno in annum so long as the one should be Parson and the other Parishioner Si ambabus partibus tam diu placuerit he should retain his Tithes for 6 s. 8 d. per An. And Richardson Justice said and it was not denied That the Suggestion is naught for the uncertainty of it and a Prohibition cannot be granted upon that For the words de annâ— in annum make an Estate for a year and the next words make an Estate for Life and the last words but an Estate at Will and what shall be Traversed here It appears that for Years it is good without Deed but not for life and if it be but at Will when the other demands his Tithes the Will is determined But at another day the Suggestion was made That he made several Agreements with his Parishioner that he pay 6 s. 8 d. for his Tithes for four years And then a Prohibition was granted Harvey sufficit If an Agreement be proved for these four years 48. Sâ—â—t moved for a Prohibition That whereas he had twenty Acres of Wheat and had set out the Tenth part for Tithe the Defendant pretending that there was a Custome of Tithing that the Owner should have fifty four Sheaves and the Parson five and so he sued for Tithes for that there was no such Custome And the Court said That the Modus decimandi must be sued for as well in the Ecclesiastical Court as for the Tithe it self And if it be allowed between the parties they shall proceed there but if the Custome be denied it must be tried at the Common Law For if it be found for a Custome Consultation must be granted if not then the Prohibition is to stand 49. Napper against Steward the Parson had a Prohibition against divers of his Parishioners that Libelled in the Ecclesiastical Court to make Proof by Witness of divers manner of Tithing in perpetuam rei memoriam 50. A Prohibition for H. against E. Farmer of the Rectory of S. and prescribed That all Tenants and Occupiers of Meadow had used to cut the Grass and to straw it abroad called Tetting and then gathered into Wind-rows and then put it into Grass-Coâ—ks in equal parts without any fraud to set out the Tenth-Cock great and small to the Parson in full satisfaction as well of the first as of the latter Math Upon Traverse of the Custome it was â—ound for the Plaintiff and exception was taken That the Custome was void because it imports no more than what every Owner ought to do and so no recompence for the two Maths But the Court gave Judgment â—or the Plaintiff for Dismes naturally are but the Tenth of the Revenue of any Ground and not of any labour or Industry Where it may be divided as in Gross it may though not in Corn and in divers places they sâ—t out the Tenth acre of Wood standing and so of Grass And the Jury having found his Form of Tithing there it is sufficient and the like Judgment upon the like Custome was in the Kings Bench. Pasch 2 Jac. Rot. 191 or 192. inter Hall Symonds 51. In Johnson's Case if a Prohibition be granted upon matter at Common Law as upon a Personal Agreement between Parson and Parishioner for his Tithes and not upon matter within the Stat. of 2 E. 6. 13. the Suggestion shall not be Proved within the Six months as the Statute limits and as it is Agreed by the whole Court 52. The Defendant here in the Prohibition Libels for Tithes of Hay in the Ecclesiastical Court The Plaintiff suggests that the Hay was growing upon Greenskips Deals and Headlands and that there is a Custome that the Parishioners in a Meadow there used to make the Tithe-Hay for the Parson and in consideration of that to be discharged of all Tithes of Hay growing ut supra and also that for the Hay of the Land no Tithe ought to be paid of such Hay but does
must be set forth of Wool casually lost For Wool and Lamb no Action lies upon the Statute for not setting out of Tithes for they are no Predial Tithes and no Action lies upon this Statute for Small Tithes vid. Brownl Rep. par 1. Cases in Law c. yet Wool and Lamb are said to be Predial mixt Tithes Mich. 8 Jac. B. By the Decree or Canon of the Provincial Constitutions the payment of the Tithe of Wool is regulated as the Tithe of Lambs viz. That if the Parishioner hath under Seven Fleeces he shall pay a Halspeny for every Fleece and if there be Seven Fleeces and under Ten then the Parson or Vicar is to allow a Halfpeny for every one that is wanting of Ten. Lindw cap. Quoniam propter And albeit by the said Decree Election is given to the Parson to receive his Tithe in manner aforesaid or to let them run on till a Fleece in kind be due in the ensuing year yet it seems by the Common Law Tithes must be paid annually Although Tithe cannot be denied of Locks and Pelts of Wool where there is much in quantity yet it hath been Resolved That where Tithe-Fleeces of Wool are paid there shall be no Tithe paid of the Locks and Pelts of Wool Also where the Custome is to shear the Necks of Sheep about Michaelmass to prevent the tearing off of the same by Thorns by Bryers in the Winter if this be done without fraud and not to deceive the Parson then no Tithe shall be paid for the same But for the Wool of Sheep dying of the Rot or any other disease or kill'd or sold by the Owner Tithe shall be paid ratably for the same And yet it hath been otherwise Resolved and that Tithe shall not be paid of the Pelts and Fells of Wool of Sheep which die of the Rot without a Special Custome for it For where the Vicar of Kilmonsden in the County of Somerset Libelled in the Ecclesiastical Court for Tithe of the Wool of Sheep which died of the Rot a Prohibition was granted Nor shall Tithe be paid of the Wool of those Sheep which after they be shorn do die before the Feast of Easter next following The Reasons are 1 Because they are but of small or no value 2 Because the Owner of the Sheep hath paid Tithes for them the same year and there shall not be a double Tithe paid for one and the same thing in one and the same year 3 Because Tithe shall be paid of the clear profit only but if the Sheep do die before the Feast of Easter all the profit of them is lost for which reason to demand Tithes for the same were Afflictionem addere Afflicto Where a Prohibition was prayed because the Parson Libelled in the Ecclesiastical Court for the Tenth part of a Bargain of Sheep which had depastured in the Parish from Michaelmass to our Lady-day the party Surmizing That he would pay the Tenth part of the Wool of them according to the Custome of the Parish The Court would not grant a Prohibition for that by this way the Parson might be defrauded of all and the Sheep being now gone to another Parish he cannot have any Wool at this time because it was not the time or season of shearing Note in that Case it was said That de Animalibus Inutilibus the Parson shall have the Third part of the Bargain for Depasture as Horses Oxen c. But de Animalibus Vtilibus he shall have Tithe in specie Finally to obtain a Prohibition a man alledged inter alia a Custome That they used to clip the Wool from the Necks of their Sheep for the preservation of them as aforesaid and at Shearing they used to pay the Tenth Fleece in consideration whereof they used to be discharged of the payment of Tithes of Neck Wool Issue being joyned upon this and other Prescriptions then pleaded and found against the Plaintiff It was moved That no Consultation might be awarded but it was Adjudged for the Defendant for the Prohibition is grounded upon the Prescription and being found against it that c. Wherefore being found for the Plaintiff a Consultation was granted Trin. 18 Jac. B. R. Jouce Parker's Case Cro. 2. Par. 575. vid. Bulstr 3. par 242 243. the same Case Hughe's Abridg. Dismes Sect. 5. § 23. An Action of Debt brought upon the Statute of E. 6. for not setting forth of Tithes and the Plaintiff declared as well for the Predial Tithes for which he might well bring his Action as for other Tithes as of Wool and Lamb for which no Action on that Statute would lie and upon Trial the Jury found for all as well for those that would as would not bear an Action and after a Verdict this Exception was taken and Judgment arrested If a man pay Tithe of Lamb at St. Marks-tide and after at Midsomer he shear the rest of the Lambs viz. the Nine parts he ought to pay the Tithe of Wool for them although there be but Two months between the time of payment of the Tithes of the Lamb that were not shorn paid with their Fleeces and the shearing of the rest for it is a new increase in this case Prohibition was therefore denied But a man shall not pay any Tithe of Herbage of Sheep for that he pays Tithe of the Wool for otherwise he should pay Tithes twice of the same Increase If a man shear his Sheep only about the Neck to preserve them from the Vermin and not for the profit of the Wool the Parson shall have no Tithes thereof but otherwise it is if they are much shorn by Covin for the benefit of the Wool the Law is the same if they are shorn about the Necks without fraud but two Months before and two Months after Michaelmass to preserve them and their Fleeces from the Brambles no Tithes shall be paid thereof for it appears that they were not shorn for the benefit of the Wool it being done at that time before the Flecces are increased after their being shorn throughout Likewise if a Parishioner cut off the dirty Locks of his Sheep for their better preservation from the Vermin before the Shearing-time and that without fraud no Tithes shall be paid thereof and Prohibition granted in this case But if a man kill sheep he shall yet pay Tithes of the Wool that comes of them but not for their Skins For a Prohibition for suing for Tithes of Locks of Wool it was suggested he had paid the Tenth Fleece of Wool in satisfaction of all Locks and Tithes due for Wool The Court held that in this case the substance of the Prescription was good enough because Locks be not of the same value with the Fleece But in regard of a fault in the Suggestion that it was not that they had usually paid which is issuable a Consultation was awarded CHAP. XXXIII Of Banns 1. Whence
the different conditions of the persons of whom they were begotten As when they were begotten by persons of a single and unmarried Estate and of such as were kept as Concubines the Civil Law called them Filii Naturales if begotten of single Women not design'd for Concubines for satisfaction of present Lust then they were called Spurii if begotten of such as the Law styles Scorta or common Harlots by publick profession than they were called Manzeres if begotten of Married Women then they were called Nothi if begotten between Ascendents and Descendents or between Collaterals contrary to the Divine prohibition then they are called Incestuosi 6. Bastardy so stains the Blood that the Bastard can challenge neither Honour nor Arms and so disables him that he cannot pretend to any succession to inheritance The Temporal and the Ecclesiastical Laws with us do not differ as to matter of Bastardy but something as to the prosecution thereof The Ecclesiastical Law brings it two ways to Judgment Incidently and Principally the Common Law makes two sorts thereof General and Special Incidently at the Ecclesiastical Law when it is pleaded in Bar to a claim of something in right of Nativity Principally when by reason of some slanderous and reproachful speeches it is brought before the Court as the principal matter in Judgment to be alledged and proved that thereupon Sentence may be pronounced accordingly by the Ecclesiastical Judge Ad Curiam enim Regiam non pertinet agnoscere de Bastardia General Bastardy at Common Law is so called because it is in gross objected in Barr against a Man to disappoint him in the Principal matter of his Suit Which because it is of Ecclesiastical Cognizance is sent by the Kings Writ to the Ordinary to enquire whether the Party charged with Bastardy were born in or out of Lawful Matrimony And as the Ordinary finds the truth of the matter upon due examination so he pronounceth accordingly in his Consistory whereof he returns Certificate to the Temporal Courts Special Bastardy at the Common Law seems to be only that where the Matrimony is confest but the Priority or Posteriority of the Nativity of him whose Birth is in question is controverted General Bastardy ought to be Tryed by the Bishop and not by the Country But Bastardy in this sense cannot be tryed by the Ordinary otherwise than by vertue of the Kings Writ on some Suit depending in the Temporal Court When Issue is joyn'd on Bastardy before it be awarded to the Ordinary to Try it Proclamation thereof is made in the same Court and after Issue it is certified into Chancery where Proclamation is made once a Month for three Months and then the Lord Chancellour certifies it to the Court where the Plea is depending and after it is Proclaimed again in the same Court that all such whom the said Plea concerns may appear and make their Allegations before the Ordinary whose Certificate of Bastardy is nothing to the purpose unless it come in by Process at the Suit of the Parties And this Bastardy ought to be certified under the Seal of the Ordinary for it is not sufficient to certifie it under the Seal of the Commissary And although the Defendant be certified a Bastard by the Ordinary yet the Certificate shall lose its force if the Plaintiff be afterwards Nonsuit for then the Certificate is not of Record In the Case of Elborough against Allen it was said by Crook that for calling one Bastard generally there is not any sufficient Ground of Action at the Common Law but if there be any special Loss thereby it shall be a good ground of Action at the Comon Law as if a Man be upon Marriage or in treaty for the sale of Land whereby his Title is disparaged Doderidge Justice said That the word Bastard is generally of another Jurisdiction and belongs to the Ecclesiastical Court to determine what shall be Bastardy and their Judgement is given for the damage which the party had in his birth and for that their Entry is quia laesis est natalitiis And in this Case the Chief Justice said that generally to say J. S. is a Bastard J. S. hath not cause of Action given him thereby but if there be a Temporal cause averr'd the Common Law may proceed therein for though Originally Bastardy be of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction not Triable at the Common Law and therefore as in its general nature it is of the Spiritual Jurisdiction so being by its generality no ground of Action at the Common Law yet if one be to sue for a Childs part or sue for the Administration of his Fathers Goods and this be set forth in the Declaration it will maintain an Action at Common Law Doderidge Justice said That to say generally that one called him Bastard is not ground of Action if he doth not shew some special Loss thereby as when a Woman brings her Action and says that she was in Treaty of Marriage and that the Defendant called her Whore this will not maintain an Action unless she say withall that by reason of these words she lost her preferment but Chamberlain Justice said to call a Woman Whore is at this day a sufficient cause of Action for her for that it is punishable by the Statute he also further said that if a Man Libel in the Ecclesiastical Court that he hath Lands by descent and that J. S. call'd him Bastard they may not proceed there or if they do a Prohibition lies He further said that for calling a Man Bastard generally without special Loss alledged Action shall be maintained and Cited a Case in 6 Eliz. Dyer Where a Man recovered red great Dammages for that the Defendant had said that his Father was a Bastard And cited also one Nelson and Stokes Case in 5 Jac. where the Plaintiff did not alledge any special cause of Action and yet recovered 7. By the Civil Law such as were born in the beginning of the eleventh Month next after the decease of their Mothers Husband were to be accounted legitimate but such as were born in the end thereof were to be accounted Bastards Auth. Col. 4. yet the Gloss there relates a matter of Fact contrary to this Law and gives us an instance of a Widow in Paris who was delivered of a Child the fourteenth Month after her Husbands death yet the good repute of this Womans continency prevailed so much against the Letter of the Law that the Court Judg'd the causes of Child-birth to be sometimes extraordinary the Woman to be chast and the Child Legitimate Hoc tamen in exemplum trahi facile non oportet as the Gloss there concludes 8. By the Common Law if a Child be born but an hour after the solemnization of Marriage it shall be the Husbands though it were begotten by another Man who was not the Mothers Husband and may be the Heir of him who Married the Mother but a Day
Patrum Concinnatis it was Lawful so to do the words of the Canon are Si vir sive Mulier ex consensis Religionem ceperit licet alterum accipere novum conjugium But from hence no Argument can be drawn to prove the Lawfulness thereof in Causa Divortii The Cardinal of Segutium in his summa Hostiensis seems to be of Opinion that it is Lawful in case of Divorce to Marry again the words of that famous Canonist are debet Iudex sententiam Divortii partibus tradere in Scripturam publicam redactam ne Filiis susceptis ex secundo Matrimonio probatione deficiente valeat praejudicium generari But Cardinal Navarr seems to be more positive in the point where he Affirms that Matrimonium Contractum cum secunda post sententiam Divortii valet provided it be post Triennalem Cohabitationem as the Canon Law requires in causa Impotentiae Navar. Concil l. 4. concil 1. de Frigidis nu 3. p. 414. But it seems strange that Sanchez a Jesuite and one of the highest form arguing this Question against the Hereticks as they are pleas'd to call us should so ingenuously confess that ex ipsis Catholicis aliqui existimarunt omnino dissolvi Matrimonium quoad vinculum eo propter Adulterium alterius Conjugis separato atque ita licere aliud Matrimonium inire priori Conjuge superstite Sanch. de Matrim Tom. 3. l. 10. de Divor Disp 2. nu 1. Navar. lib. 4. Concil 1. nu 3. 8. This utrum ob Adulterium alterius Conjugis dissolvatur Matrimonium quoad vinculum ita ut integrum sit innocenti ad alias Nuptias transire altera parte vivente was a Question long since controverted by Bellarmin and by Valentia Bellarm. l. 1. de matrim c. 15. Valent. lib. unic de indissolubilitate matrim cap. 3. And by them admitted as disputable with a Non obstante to the Council of Trent whereby Matrimony is highly Sacramentiz'd as appears by that which the said Tridental Council declares concerning it viz. Matrimonium est Sacramentum quod ex opere operato confert gratiam secundum Communem veram opinionem quam pro infallibili Articulo Fidei tenendam esse ait Concilium Trident. declaravit Navar. lib. 4. Concil 1. nu 3. Yet the forementioned Sanchez doth cite Sixtus Senensis bringing in Origen Asserentem sui temporis Episcopos permisisse alias Nuptias uxoribus ob virorum Adulteria ab ipsis divertentibus Sanch. ubi supra Sixt. Senens lib. 6. Bibliothec. Of which Judgment also was St. Ambrose as he affirms also Tertullian Erasmus Cajetan and Catherinus Tertul. lib. 4. contra Marcion Erasm annot ad 1. Cor. 7. Cather l. 5. Annot. contra Cajetan infin Cajetan in Mat. 19. in illud quicunque dimiserit This also saith Sanchez was the Judgement of the Greek Church as Guido the Carmelite reports and of this Judgment are both the Lutherans and Calvinists yea it was the Judgement also of a Pope Pope Zacharias the First who expresly Decreed in these words viz. Concubuisti cum sorore uxoris tuae Neutram habeas Et si illa quae uxor tua fuerit Conscia sceleris non fuit si se continere non vult Nubat in Domino cui velit Cap. Concubuisti 32. quest 7. And as to the Husband St. Ambrose is express in the Case uxor à viro non descedat nisi causa Fornicationis quod si discesserit aut maneat innupta aut reconcilietur Ideo non subdit de viro quod de uxore praemisit quia vero liceat ducere aliam D. Ambros. ad 1 Cor. 7. refertur cap. uxor 32. q. 7. So likewise Ex concilio apud Vermerias it is express that Maritus uxore conciliante mortem ejus possit ipsam uxorem dimittere si voluerit aliam ducere refertur c. si qua Mulier 31. q. 1. 9. In the first Year of Lotharius King of Kent An. 683. In Concilio Herudfordiae It was Decreed that Nullus Conjugem propriam nisi ut sanctum Evangelium docet Fornicationis causa relinquat Quod si quis quam propriam expulerit Conjugem Legitimo sibi Matrimonio Conjunctam Si Christianus esse recte voluerit nulli alteri copuletur sed ita remaneat aut propriae reconcilietur Conjugi In those days it seems he was reputed scarce a Christian that being separated from his Wife presumed to Marry another And above two hundred years before in St. Patricks Synod viz. In Synodo Sancti Patricii aliorumque Episcoporum in Hibernia Celebrata circa An. Christi 450 vel 456. It was decreed That the punishment of a Woman departing from her Husband and joyning her self to another Man should be Excommunication In the time of H. 3. and in the Case of Simon de Montford between him and his Wife the Pope ratified his Marriage after he had dispenced therewith contrary to the Laws and Canons King John being Divorced from the D. of Glocesters Daughter viz. the third of June 1199. soon after viz. before the 8 th of October then next following was Remarried to Isabel sole Daughter and Heir to the E. of Engolesme Likewise Alice Daughter of the E. of Savoy and King John's first Wife was Married to him after she had been the Divorced Wife of Henry de Lyon D. of Saxony Speed Chron. in vita Johan R. Angl. Also King Henry 8 th after he had been Divorced from Q. Katherine his Brothers Relict and after above twenty years cohabitation with her Married again during her Life the Lady Anne Bullen by whom he had Q. Elizabeth These are Presidents of Fact not of Law For 10. Alceat asserts that hodie Jure Pontificio permittitur solum separatio ex certis causis nec interim licet aliam ducere etiamsi separationi uxor causam dederit yet withall he says in the same place Aliter tamen aliqui ex Antiquis Patribus olim observare inter quos Ambrosius qui ex justa causa Marito jus divertendi atque aliam ducendi c. Non enim hos homo separat sed Deus quando ita Optimis Antistitibus propter malos Foeminae mores videtur Alceat de verb. sig l. 101. inter stuprum Sect. Divortium In which place the same Author further adds It is no wonder that the Emperor Justinian himself was somewhat sparing in this point when the Pontifical Canon passim tempestate sua observatus fuisset ut forte credendum sit Licere Pontifici eos Canones tollere jus Romanum observari si velit Grotius says Cum ea alteri Nupta est Matrimonium haud dubie irritum lege quidem Naturali nisi vir prior eam dimiserit Grot. de jur bel lib. 2. cap. 5. § 11. And in the Matrimonial Councils it is express That Mulier à primo Matrimonio per sententiam separata cum eo cum quo secundo nupsit cum Authoritate Ecclesiae manere debet Concil Matrim Concil Baldi 3. nu