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
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
the Common Law makes Avoidance Actual if the Patron will 12. Proceedings being in the Ecclesiastical Court to remove an Incumbent after Induction a Prohibition was granted to stay the same One Oliver sued a Quare Impedit against Hussey and while that depended Hussey was Instituted and Inducted and Oliver sued Hussey in the Spiritual Court to remove him Noy pray'd a Prohibition First because he may not sue in Two Courts for the same cause Secondly because it is a Suit after Induction and upon that last point the Court granted a Prohibition 13. In the Case of Dennys against Drake it was said That if a man be Instituted to a Benefice he ought to pay the First-Fruits before Induction by the Statute But by the Common Law it was otherwise for he is not to have the Temporalties until Induction and therefore he could not pay the First-Fruits but another person cannot be Presented to his Benefice during the continuance of the First Institution And an Institution to a Second Benefice is a present Avoidance of the First 14. G. Parson of the Church of E. did by Instrument in Writing Resign his Benefice before a Notary Publick and others into the hands of the Bishop and the Resignation was absolute and voluntary and to the use of M. and B. or either of them And it was further inâ—erted in the said Instrument of Resignation Protestatione sub Conditione quod si aliqui eorum non Admissi fuerant per assentum Episcop infra Sex menses quod tunc haec praesens Resignatio mea vacua pro nulla habeatur nunc prout tunc tunc prout nunc and Cestuy que use came within the time limited to the Bishop and did offer to Resign to him which the Bishop refused to accept c. Crooke for the Plaintiff Forasmuch as the Plaintiff may Resign on Condition as well as a particular Tenant may Surrender upon Condition And Two Parsons may Exchange and if the Estate be Executed on the one part and not on the other that Parson whose part was not Executed may have his Benefice again as it is Adjudged in the 46 E. 3. But Coke Sollic and Godfrey were on the contrary Opinion For that the Incumbent may not Transfer his Benefice to another without Presentation as appears in the recited Case of 46 E. 3. Also the Resignation is not good and the Condition void because it is against the nature of a Resignation which must be Absolute Sponte pure Simpliciter and is not like to a Condition in Law as in the said Case of Exchange of 46 E. 3. for the Law doth annex a Condition to it but a collateral Condition cannot be annext by the parties themselves Also this is an act Judicial to which a Condition cannot be annex'd no more than an Ordinary may Admit upon Condition or a Judgment be confessed on Condition which are Judicial Acts. But admitting the Condition to be good yet a new Induction ought to be made by the Ordinary for the Church became one time void and is not like to the Case in 2 R. 2. Quare Impedit 143. Where Sentence of Deprivation was given and the Sentence presently reversed by Appeal there needs no new Institution for that the Church was never void And upon Arguments given in Writing by the Civilians to the Judges the Judgment was entered Quod querens nihil capiat per Billam 15. In Rud's Case against the Bishop of Lincoln it was inter alia Resolved by the Court That when one having a good Title to Present and an Incumbent by Usurpation is Admitted Instituted and Inducted and after that the Patron Presents and the Bishop refuse and after the Patron recover and then he which had this Presentation exhibits it to the Bishop this is now a good Presentation and the Patron cannot revoke or give him a new Presentation But if the Patron before the death of the Incumbent make Letters of Presentation that is void because he had no Title to Present 16. Induction is nothing else but the putting of the Parson into Actual possession of the Church and Glebe which are the Temporalties of the Church or the making of a Clerk compleat Incumbent of a Church This is Induction and it is by Letters from the Bishop of the Diocess directed to all and singular the Clerks Rectors Vicars c. within the said Diocess to put the Clerk or his lawful Attorney for him and in his name into the Actual possession of the Church to which he had been Presented and Instituted together with all the profits dues members and appurtenances whatsoever thereunto belongings or appertaining of the due execution whereof a Certificate endorsed on the Instrument of Induction and Subscrib'd by a competent number of Witnesses ought to be returned to the said Bishop or Ordinary who may appoint the Archdeacon to give Induction yet by Prescription it seems the Dean and Chapter of Pauls as also the Dean and Chapter of Lichfield may give Induction It is also said That an Induction made by a Bishop is void where it belongs to a Dean and Chapter by Prescription But an Induction by the Patron is void yet the King 's Grantee of a Free-Chappel shall be put into possession by the Sheriff of the County and not by the Ordinary of the place 17. This Induction is not a Spiritual but a Temporal Act and therefore if after the Clerk hath been Presented by the Patron and Admitted and Instituted by the Bishop the Archdeacon shall refuse to Induct him into the Benefice an Action upon the Case lieth for the Clerk against the Archdeacon And after the Incumbent is thus Inducted he may then plead any Plea in Bar of a Quare Impedit brought against him which concerneth his Possession and so may plead a Release in Bar because he hath the Freehold in him which shall not be lost without his Answer For by this Induction or being led into the Church he hath as it were Livery and Seisin thereof given him as the lawful Incumbent by delivery of the Keys of the Church to him and that by order of the Bishop whereof Publication is then made to the Parishioners by ringing one or more the Bells And albeit a Parson hath his Presentation Admission and Institution and that upon a lawful Title yet he is not a possessor of the Parsonage according to the Letter of the Law till his Induction Which Induction is as aforesaid a Temporal Act and as the Opinion of the Court was in Hutton's Case Triable by Temporal Law and since by Induction the Church is Full it is not to be avoided but by a Suit of Quare Impedit or the like at the Common Law and not to be undermined by alledging Insufficiency in the Institution in the Court Ecclesiastical for that may come in question upon the Trial of the Induction at the Common
as a Lay-Fee by the Induction If a Town erect a Common School and allow Maintenance to the Schoolmaster the Bishop may not remove him and put in another at his pleasure But if he be a Recusant he may remove him by the Statute of 23 Eliz. cap. 1. 13. Although an Incumbent be deprivable yet the Patron cannot Present another until he be deprived for till then the Church is not void Also if the Visitor by the Kings Command return into Chancery good matter for deprivation of the King's Clerk yet the King cannot Present another to the Church until he be deprived Contra 17 E. 3. 59. b. 14. Where Two Incumbents were of one Church one sued the other in the Ecclesiastical Court to be deprived for not Reading the Articles and giving his Assent to them according to the Statute of 13 Eliz. The issue was whether he gave his Assent the Jury found he read the Articles and said I give my assent to them as far as they agree with the Word of God And it was Adjudged That it is not such an unfeigned Assent as is within the intent of the Statute 15. In a Prohibition the Case was J. S. seized in Fee of the Advowson of the Church of C. Presented thereunto D. who was Instituted and Inducted but did not read the Articles according to the Statute of 13 Eliz. Afterwards came the General Pardon of 18 Eliz. Afterwards D. was deprived by Sentence for not Reading the Articles he Appealed and depending the Appeal B. the Plaintiff obtained a Presentation from the Queen and was Instituted and Inducted D. died and he that had the Advowson Presented R. the other Defendant who sued in the Ecclesiastical Court to be Admitted It was Resolved That the Church became void presently by the not Reading of the Articles and there needed not any Deprivation and the Pardon in this case works nothing for the Church being once void for not Reading the Articles he cannot by the Pardon be restored and the Pardon will not reach to it for the punishment is to lose his Benefice Adjudged the Prohibition to stand But if a man be deprived for an offence done Tempore Parliamenti and the Offence be after pardoned by the same Parliament and then the Parliament endeth In this case the Deprivation is void in it self and the party need not sue to reverse it for the Parliament relateth to the First day thereof As was Resolved in Foxe's Case 16. In a Quare Impedit the Case was That L. had Two Presentations and W. the Third of Inheritance perpetual L. Presented P. who was Instituted and Inducted and afterwards in the time of Queen Mary was deprived because a Married man wherefore he again Presented D. who was Inducted Afterwards P. was restored with Declaration that he had good Title Afterwards P. died W. Presented H. L. brought the Quare Impedit It was Adjudged for the Plaintiff because the Sentence declaratory for the Restitution made a Nullity in the Deprivation and so avoided the Incumbency of D. and so L. had good Title to Present at his Second Turn and W. had no Title to Present as yet 17. In Hornigold's Case against Brian it was said That if a Judgment of Deprivation be given in the Ecclesiastical Court against a Parson for his Benefice if presently upon this Judgment he makes his Appeal the Church is not void but he remains Parson during all the time of this Appeal for if by this he doth reverse the Judgment he shall need no new Institution and Induction As if a Judgment be given of a Divorce in the Ecclesiastical Court and this is after reversed by an Appeal there shall need no new Marriage And in this Case Coke Chief Justice said That 39 E. 3. hath the same Case And that if an Appeal be from a Sentence of Divorce they are now by this Baron and Feme again So if a Parson be deprived and Appeals he is by this Parson again and may have an Action of Trespass And as touching Appeals in reference to Deprivation there was a famous Case in the Court of C. B. about 5 or 6 Jac. a Worcestershire Case between Lechmere Plaintiff and Carr Defendant in an Action of Trespass and upon Non Culp pleaded a Special Verdict was found viz. That Bonner was made Bishop of London in the time of King H. 8. and so continued until 2 Ed. 6. at or about which time a Commission issued forth to the then Lord Chancellor and others to Convent Bishop Bonner before them and to examine him and if they found him to be Contumacious and would not Answer them the Commissioners were impowerd then to Imprison him or to Deprive him The Commissioners upon this did first Imprison him and afterwards proceeded further against him to Deprivation Bonner from this Appealeth and his Appeal not heard Nicholas Ridley is made Bishop of London who makes a Lease of the Park and Mannor of Bushley under which Lease the Defendant claimed Afterwards viz. Primo Mariae Ridley is declared to be an Usurper and Bonner by a Sentence Definitive is restored again to the Bishoprick of London and makes a Lease of the Premisses demised to the Plaintiff Upon which Special Verdict the Points stirred were these 1 Whether the Deprivation of Bonner was lawful or not the Authority by the Commission being in the Disjunctive viz. to Imprison or to Deprive him and as it was urged they first Imprisoning of him had thereby executed their Authority and so then the Deprivation void 2 Admitting the Deprivation void then Bonner still continued Bishop of London And then Ridley was never Bishop for that there could not be two Bishops of London simul semel and so the Lease by him made to the Defendant was a void Lease 3 Admitting the Deprivation good then Quid operatur by the Appeal whether it did not suspend the Sentence of Deprivation And if so then again Ridley was no lawful Bishop and so the Lease under which the Defendant claimed was void This Case was Learnedly Argued by Common Lawyers and also by Civilians and the Judges inclined to be of Opinion for the Plaintiff But the Defendant perceiving this preferred his Bill in Chancery and there obtained a Decree against Lechmere 18. If a meer Lay-person who is altogether incapable of a Benefice be Presented Instituted and Inducted yet the Church is not therefore said by the Common Law to be void as if no Presentation had been but is still by that Law full of an Incumbent de facto licet non de jure until by Sentence Declaratory in the Ecclesiastical Court for want of Capacity the Church be Adjudged void and upon this no Lapse shall incurr against the Lay-Patron without Notice of such Incapacity and Sentence of Deprivation thereupon to him given King H. 4. Presented one that was Incapable of his Presentation and the Presentee was thereby Admitted Instituted and Inducted and
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
c. may have an Action of Trespass 36. In an Action upon the Case D. shewed he was seized of a Messuage and Land in P. to the same belonging and in the Parish of P. time whereof c. and yet is a Chappel in the North part of the Chancel called the Parsons Chancel and the Plaintiff and all those c. have used to sustain and repair the said Chancel and have used for him and his Family to sit in Seats of the said Chancel and to Bury there the persons dying in the said Messuage and that none other during all the said time c. without their License have used to sit there or to be buried there and that the Defendants Praemissorum non ignari malitiose impediverunt him to enter and sit in the said Seats The Defendant said That the Earl of N. was seized of the Honour of F. and the said Chappel was parcel of the said Honour and that the Defendants being Servants of the said Earl and resident within the said Honour did divers times in the time of Divine Service sit in the Seats of the said Chancel by the command of the said Earl upon which it was Demurred Exceptions were taken to the Declaration because he prescribes to have a Liberty appertaining to his House and doth not shew it is an Ancient House And 2 That the Allegation of the disturbance was ill being general without alleding a special Disturbance and how he was disturbed Resolved That when it is supposed he is seized in Fee of a Capital Messuage and time c. it is there included that it is an ancient Messuage and so might have such a priviledge And for the second it is sufficient to alledge a general Disturbance as is usual in the Case of a Fair or Market 37. D. was Indicted upon the Statute of 5 E. 6. for striking in Paul's Church-yard he pleaded that he was by the Queens Letters Patents created Garter King of Arms and demanded Judgment because he was not so named It was the opinion of the Court that because it was a parcel of his Dignity and not of his Office only and because the Patent is Creamus coronamus nomen imponimus de Garter Rex heraldorum that therefore in all Suits brought against him he ought to be named by this name and thereupon he was discharged of the Indictment And in Penhallo's Case who was Indicted upon the same Statute for drawing of Dagger in the Church of B. against J. S. and doth not say with intent to strike him for which cause the Judgment was quashed Likewise in Child's Case who was Indicted for striking in the Church-yard and it was apud generalem Sessionem Pacis tent apud Blandford and it was not said in Comitatu praedicto for which reason the party was discharged though the County was in the Margin 38. In Pym's Case before-mentioned Corven did Libel in the Ecclesiastical Court against Pym for a Seat in a Church in Devonshire And Pym by Serjeant Hutton moved for a Prohibition upon this Reason That himself is seized of a House in the said Parish and that he and all whose Estate he hath in the House have had a Seat in an Isle of the Church And it was Resolved by the Court That if a Lord of a Mannor or other person who hath his House and Land in the Parish time out of mind and had a Seat in an Isle of the same Church so that the Isle is proper to his Family and have maintained it at their charges That if the Bishop would dispossess him he shall have a Prohibition But for a Seat in the Body of a Church if a question ariseth it is to be decided by the Ordinary because the Freehold is to the Parson and is common to all the Inhabitants And it is to be presumed That the Ordinary who hath cure of Souls will take order in such cases according to right and conveniency and with this agrees 8 H. 7. 12. And the Chief Justice Damc Wick her Case 9 H. 4. 14. which was The Lady brought a Bill in B. R. against a Parson Quare tunicam unam vocatam A Coat Armor and Pennons with her Husband Sir Hugh Wick his Arms and a Sword in a Chappel where he was buried and the Parson claimed them as Oblations And it was there held That if one were to sit in the Chancel and hath there a place his Carpet Livery and Cushion the Parson cannot claim them as Oblations for that they were hanged there is honour of the decased The same reason of a Coat-Armour c. And the Cbief Justice said The Lady might have a good Action during her life in the case aforesaid because she caused the things to be set up there and after her death the Heir shall have his Action they being in the nature of Heir-Looms which belong to the Heir And with this agrees the Laws of other Nations Bartho Cassanae fo 13. Con. 29. Actio datur si aliquis Arma in aliquo loco posita deleat aut abrasit c. And in 21 Ed. 3. 48. in the Bishop of Carlisle's Case Note That in Easter-Term it was Resolved in the Star-Chamber in the case between Hussey and Katherine Leyton That if a man have a House in any Parish and that he and all those whose Estate he hath have used to have a certain Pew in the Church that if the Ordinary will displace him he shall have a Prohibition but where there is no such prescription the Ordinary will dispose of common and vulgar Seats 39. In the County of Dorset there was a Mother-Church and also a Chappel of Ease within the same Parish they of the Mother-Church did rate and tax them of the Chappel of Ease towards reparations of the Mother-Church for the which upon their refusal to pay the same being sued in the Ecclesiastical Court they prayed a Prohibition and for cause alledged That they themselves have used time out of mind c. to repair the Chappel at their own proper cost without having any Contribution at all from them of the Mother-Church and that they have been exempted from all charges and reparations of the Mother-Church and yet for their refusal to pay this Tax they were libelled against in the Ecclesiastical Court and a Sentence there passed against them they therefore prayed a Prohibition By the opinion of the whole Court a Prohibition lieth not in this case in regard that this Prescription is meerly Spiritual and therefore a Prohibition denied per Curiam 40. One was presented ex Officio in the Ecclesiastical Court for the not frequenting of his Parish-Church he there pleads That this was not his Parish-Church but that he had used to frequent another Parish Church and to resort unto that And because they in the Ecclesiastical Court would not receive his plea the Court was moved for a Prohibition for that by the Law in the
but by death or resignation for otherwise Dilapidations should be in the time of the Successor and he cannot maintain Hospitality 8. The wasting of the Woods belonging to a Bishoprick is in the Law understood as a Dilapidation as was formerly hinted Note By Coke Chief Justice a Bishop is only to fell Timber for Building for Fuel and for his other necessary occasions and there is no Bishoprick but the same is on the Foundation of the King the Woods of the Bishoprick are called the Dower of the Church and these are alwaies carefully to be preserved and if he fell and destroy this upon a motion thereof made to us says the Lord Coke we will grant a Prohibition And to this purpose there was a great Cause which concerned the Bishop of Duresm who had divers Cole-Mines and would have cut down his Timber-Trees for the maintenance and upholding of his Works and upon motion in Parliament concerning this for the King Order was there made that the Judges should grant a Prohibition for the King and we will here says he revive this again for there a Prohibition was so granted And so upon the like motion made unto us in the like case we will also for the King grant a Prohibition by the Statute of 35 E. 1. If a Bishop cut down Timber-Tres for any cause unless it be for necessary Reparations as if he sell the same unto a Stranger we will grant a Prohibition And to this purpose I have seen said he a good Record in 25 E. 1. where complaint was made in Parliament of the Bishop of Duresm as before for cutting of Timber-Trees for his Cole-Mines and there agreed that in such a case a Prohibition did lie and upon motion made a Prohibition was then granted and the Reason then given because that this Timber was the Dower of the Church and so it shall be also in the case of a Dean and Chapter in which cases upon this ground we will grant as he said Prohibitions and the whole Court agreed with him herein Also in Sakar's case against whom Judgment being given for Simony yet he being by assent of parties to continue in the Vicarage for a certain time this time being now past and he still continuing in possession and committing of great Waste by pulling down the Glass-windows and pulling up of Planks the Court granted a Prohibition and said That this is the Dower of the Church and we will here prohibit them if they fell and waste the Timber of the Church or if they pull down the houses And Prohibition to prevent Dilapidations and to stay the doing of any Waste was in that case awarded accordingly 9. In a Prohibition the Case was this A Vicar lops and cuts down Trees growing in the Church-yard the Churchwardens hinder him in the carriage of the same away and they being in Trial of this Suit The Churchwardens by their Counsel moved the Court for a Prohibition to the Vicar to stay him from felling any more Coke Chief Justice This is a good cause of Deprivation if he fell down Timber-Trees and Wood this is a Dilapidation and by the Resolution in Parliament a Prohibition by the Law shall be granted if a Bishop fells down Wood and Timber-Trees The whole Court agreed clearly in this to grant here a Prohibition to the Vicar to inhibit him not to make spoil of the Timber this being as it is called in Parliament the Endowment of the Church Coke we will also grant a Prohibition to restrain Bishops from felling the Wood and Timber-Trees of their Churches And so in this principal Case by the Rule of the Court a Prohibition was granted CHAP. XVI Of Patrons de jure Patronatus 1. What Patron properly signifies in the Law the Original thereof and how subject to corruption 2. In what case the Bishop may proceed de jure Patronatus and how the Process thereof is to be executed 3. How the Admittance ought to be in case the same Clerk be presented by two Patrons to the same Benefice 4. In what cases of Avoydance Notice thereof ought to be given to the Patron and what course in that case the Bishop is to take in case he knews not the true Patron 5. Several Appellations in Law importing Patron 6. How many waies a Church may become Litigious 7. Whether an Advowson may be extended 8. In what case the Patron may Present where the King took not his turn upon the first Lapse 9. A Patron may not take any benefit of the Glâ—be during a Vacancy 10. In what case the Patron shall not by bringing the Writ of Qua. Imp. against the Bishop prevent the incurring of the Lapse to the Ordinary 11. The King is Patron Paramount and Patron of all the Bishopricks in England The Charter of King John whereby Bishopricks from being Donative became Elective 1. PATRON by the Canon Law as also in the Feuds wherewith our Common Law doth herein accord doth signifie a person who hath of right in him the free Donation or Gift of a Benefice grounded originally upon the bounty and beneficence of such as Founded Erected or Endowed Churches with a considerable part of their Revenue De Jur. Patronat Decretal Such were called Patroni à patrocinando and properly considering the Primitive state of the Church but now according to the Mode of this degenerating Age as improperly as Mons à movendo for by the Merchandize of their Presentations they now seem as if they were rather the Hucksters than Patrons of the Church But from the beginning it was not so when for the encouragement of Lay-persons to works of so much Piety it was permitted them to present their Clerks where themselves or their Ancestors had expressed their Bounty in that kind whence they worthily acquir'd this Right of Jus Patronatus which the very Canon Law for that reason will not understand as a thing meerly Spiritual but rather as a Temporal annexed to what is Spiritual Quod à Supremis Pontificibus proditum est Laicos habere Jus Praesentandi Clericos Ordinariis hoc singulari favore sustinetur ut allectentur Laici invitentur inducantur ad constructionem Ecclesiarum Nec omni ex parte Jus Patronatus Spirituale censeri debet sed Temporale potius Spirituali annexum Gloss in c. piae mentis 16. q. 7. Coras ad Sacerdot mater par 1. cap. 2. Yet not Temporal in a Merchandable sense unless the Presentor and Presentee will run the hazard of perishing together for prevention whereof provision is made by that Solemn Oath enjoyn'd by the Fortieth Canon of the Ecclesiastical Constitutions whereof there was no need in former Ages less corrupt when instead of selling Presentations they purchased Foundations and instead of erecting Idol-Temples for Covetousness is Idolatry they Founded Built and Endowed Churches for the Worship of the True God Patroni in jure Pontificio dicuntur qui alicujus Ecclesiae extruendae c. Authores
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
placuit 10. q. 3. Rebuff de Commenda who yet by the same Law possit expensas facere ex reditibus Beneficii Commendati sumere ex eo alimenta debita persolvere sicut is qui titulum habet c. 1. de Solutio hoc afferit Archidiac in cap. qui plures 21. q. 1. 7. The grand Case of a Commendam was that of Evans and Kiffin against Ascuth which being two daies argued by the Judges and by Noy Attorney is acutely and succinctly Reported thus viz. In Trespass Dr. Thornbury being Dean of York was chosen Bishop of Limbrick in Ireland But before Consecration or Confirmation he obtained a Patent with large words Non obstante retinere valeat in Commendam the said Deanary c. And afterwards he was chosen Bishop of Bristol and then also before Installation he obtained another Patent with a more ample Dispensation of retaining the Deanary in Commendam It was Agreed by all That the Church or Deanary c. in England shall be void by Cession if the Parson or Dean c. be made a Bishop in Ireland For the Canon Law in that is one through all the World Also Ireland is governed by the Laws of England and is now as part of England by Subordinacy Note well 45 E. 3. 19. b. Confirmation under the Great Seal of England is good in this Case Confirmation under the Great Seal of England of Presentation to a Church in Ireland of the Heir of the Tenant of the King and that a Dispensation under the Great Seal of England is good in this Case without any Patent of it in Ireland vid. 8 Ass 27. 10 E. 3. 42. An Exchange of Land in England for Land in Ireland is good Note 20 H. 6. 8 Scir fac sued in England to Repeal a Patent under the Great Seal of Ireland vid. the Irish Statute 2 Eliz. cap. 4. That an Irish Bishop may be made under the Great Seal of England Note Stat. 1 E. 6. the Irish Bishops shall be Donative by Patent of the King under the Great Seal of England yet the King may let them be chosen per Congé d'Eslire c. 1 Noy Attorney Argued at Bar and so stated the Points of the said Case by themselves If a Commendatary Dean by a Retinere in Commendam may well Confirm a Lease made by the Bishop for it is Agreed That a Commendatary Dean by Recipere in Commend cannot Confirm because he is but a Depositarius Note 19 H. 6. 16. 12 H. 4. 20. 27 H. 8. 15. a Commendatary shall be sued by that Name and by such a Commend he may take the profits and use Jurisdiction and yet is not a Dean compleat Note he may make a Deputy for Visitation but not for Confirmation of Leases Note if there be two Deans in one Church both ought to Confirm Vid. Dy. 282. Co. Inst 30. a. 2 The Second point if such a Bishop be chosen to another Bishoprick if now the first Church in Commend admitting that there was a Full Incumbent be void presently by the Election and assent of the Superiour viz. the King And it seemed to him that it was because there need not be a new Consecration and he vouch'd Panormitan 2. par 101. The Bishop of Spires was chosen Bishop of Trevers and had the assent of the Pope and that he came to Trevers and there found another in possession and he would have returned to the former Bishoprick and could not He also Cited 8 Rep. Trollop's Case That the Guardianship of the Temporalties cease by the Election of a new Bishop Note that Serjeant Henden who argued on the contrary vouch'd Mich. 4 Jac. May Bishop of Carlisle made a Lease to the Queen and a Commission issued out of the Exchequer to take it and the Dean and Chapter Confirmed it before the Inrolment of it and yet Adjudged good That Case was for the Castle of Horne First the Judges having Argued two daies Resolved 1 That all Commendams are Dispensations and that Cession commenced by the Canon and Council of Lateran 2 That the King may dispense with that Canon 11 H. 7. 12. For the Pope might and now by the Statute 21 H. 8. that power is given to the King cumulative by way of Exposition veteris and not by Introduction novi Juris and by that Statute a concurrent power is given to the Archbishop of Canterbury and may be granted to the King or by the Archbishop c. 3 That the Dispensation after Election to the first Bishoprick and before Consecration c. and also the Dispensation after Election to the second Bishoprick and before Confirmation is good enough in both Cases and he remains a good Dean to Confirm c. and afterwards the Judgment in the Case being an Action of Trespass was given accordingly 8. A Commendam is to be granted Necessitate evidenti vel utilitate Ecclesiae suadente and in the Infancy of the Church quando defuerunt Pastores they were necessary A Commendam ordinarily is but for six months and he that hath it is Custos only the other is extraordinary and that is for life and he is an Incumbent The King by his Prerogative Royal may grant a Commendam without any Statute yet if such Commendam shall be good it may be very mischievous to the Patron It is it seems agreed in the Books of the Common Law that the use of Commendams in their first Institution was lawful but not the abuse thereof and that a perpetual Commendam viz. for life was held unlawful and condemned by a Council of 700 Bishops It is likewise Reported to us That where the Incumbent of a Church was created a Bishop and the Queen granted him to hold the Benefice which he had in Commendam It was the Opinion of the Justices That the Queen had the Prerogative by the Common Law and that it is not taken away by the Stat. of 35 H. 8. 9. In a Quare Impedit brought by the King against Cyprian Horsefall and Robert Wale on a Special plea pleaded by Wale the Incumbent the Kings Attorney demurred in Law The Case in substance was this viz. the Corporation of Kilkenny being Patrons of a Vicarage within the Diocess of Ossery Presented one Patrick Fynne thereunto who was Admitted Instituted and Inducted After that during the Incumbency of the said Fynne Adam Loftus Archbishop of Dublin and Ambrose Forth Doctor of the Civil Law being Commissioners Delegates for granting of Faculties and Dispensations in the Realm of Ireland according to the Statute of 28 H. 8. cap. 16. by their Letters Dated 9 Octob. 33 Eliz. granted to John Horsefall then Bishop of Ossery That the said Bishop unum vel plura Beneficia curata vel non curata sui vel alieni Jurispatronatus non excedentia annuum valorem quadraginta Librarum adtunc vacantia vel quae per imposterum vacare contigerint perpetuae Commendae titulo adipisci occupare retinere omnesque fructus
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
his Presentation but he may cumulando variare and so the Ordinary hath Election to Institute which of them he will but that a Spiritual Patron cannot vary at all But he said that at the Common Law it is out of question That a Patron before Institution may revoke his Presentation And if the Patron present one and the Ordinary admit him but will not give him Institution Duplex Quaerela lies against the Ordinary to enforce him to do his duty But if both Parsons claim by one Patron and the one sues a Duplex Quaerela a Prohibition lies not before Institution But Jones denied it and said That it had been Resolved to the contrary Doderidge said That in that case the Induction was pendente Lite And in Calvert's Case against Kitchin it was said that they King may revoke his Presentation and by the same reason may Present another before his Presentee is Instituted for proof whereof it was said That a Common person may recall his Presentation before the Institution c. for which was vouched the Book of 31 E. 1. tit Quare Impedit 185. the Abbot of Leicesters Case although that Dyer citing it 12 Eliz. fo 292. conceives the Book contrary but it seems to be in reason that the Law is clear That a Lay-Patron may change although that a Spiritual Patron cannot and the reason is as aforesaid because a Lay-person did not know his Sufficiency perhaps at the first but a Spiritual person by intendment may inform himself thereof well enough and therefore was vouched 18 H. 7. and 1 H. 8. Kellway's Reports which plainly proves that diversity And by the 19 Eliz. fo 360. in Coleshil's Case it is said That when the King hath Presented a Repeal by him ought not to be admitted after Institution And by Dyer 339. in Yatton's Case the King may Repeal his Presentation by a new Presentation without mention made of the former except that the Second Presentation be obtained by Fraud Also the King may Present by Paroll as was said by Sir Ed. Coke in the Lord Windsors Case and as appears by 17 Eliz. Dyer as was vouched by Bromley Baron in the foresaid Case of Calvert against Kitchin where it was said by Altham Baron That by the Kings death his Presentation determines understand it before Institution and so it is said in 34 E. 3. 8. tit Quare Impedit 11. That a Presentment made by a Bishop becomes null and void by his death And in 38 Ed. 3. 3. if a Bishop Present and die before c. the King shall Present anew 11. Nomination is a power that by virtue of a Mannor or otherwise a man hath to Nominate or Appoint a Clerk to a Patron of a Benefice by him to be Presented to the Ordinary for the same where Note 1 That it may be in right of a Mannor or otherwise 2 That the Clerk Nominated ought to be a person fit able and worthy 3 That it may be to a Parsonage Vicarage or other Spiritual promotion 4 That it ought to be to another than the Ordinary which other shall present him to the Ordinary And if one hath a Right to have the Nomination of a Clerk to a Benefice and another Disturbs him he cannot have a Quare Impedit ipsum Nominare ad Ecclesiam but the Writ shall be Quod permittat ipsum Praesentare And the Count shall be That of Right he ought to Name a Clerk to such as one who ought to Present him to the Bishop and that a Stranger doth disturb him of his Nomination and in case he doth Recover the Judgment shall be Quod Episcopus admittat Clericum ad Nominationem suam 12. If A. B. doth Grant unto J. S. That he shall Name a Clerk to him to the Church of C. when it shall become void and that A. B. shall present unto the Bishop the Clerk which J. S. shall Nominate to him in that case the Presentation is in J. S. and he shall have a Quare Impedit for all the Profit is in him and the Grant of the Nomination and Presentation is all one But if A. B. doth Grant unto J. S. That he shall Nominate to him Two Clerks whereof A. B. shall Present one in that case the Presentation is not given to J. S. the Grantee because it is in the Election of A. B. which of the Two shall have the Benefice And this was the Opinion of the Justices in Smith and Clayton's Case 13. If A. hath the Nomination to an Advowson and B. the Presentation if A. Nominates C. for his Clerk and B. that should present C. doth present D. for the Clerk A. that hath the Nomination shall have a Quare Impedit and the Writ shall be Quod permittat eum Praesentare albeit A. had but the Nomination otherwise he should be without remedy for in such cases where the party can otherwise have no Right done him the Law will admit such Writ albeit the words therein be improper And if he who had but a Nomination corruptly agree to make a Presentation or Nomination this Nomination shall be forfeited to the King within the Statute of 31 Eliz. cap. 6. as was said in Calvert's Case against Kitchin and Parkinson and as it is said in Plowden in Hare and Bickley's Case He who hath the Nomination hath the effect of the Advowson Yet as in the said Case of Calvert this diversity seems to be good That if A. hath the Presentation and B. the Nomination to a Benefice and the Presentor upon a Corrupt agreement make a Presentation unknown to the Nominator here the Nominator shall not be prejudiced within the Statute of 31 Eliz. cap. 6. 14. In Green's Case vouched by Atthowe Serjeant in the Case of the King against the Archbishop of Canterbury and one Thomas Prust upon a Quare Impedit brought by the King it is said That if the Bishop Collate before the Six months incurr the Collatee is Incumbent but the Patron may Present at any time aster for that fills the Church but not against the Patron and hinders that no Lapse may incurr to another In Sir Hen. Gawdy's Case for the Church of W. the Church there became void and within fourteen daies after the King Presented one to it jure Prerogativae the Presentee continues possession above thirty years and then the Mannor and the Advowson came to Sir Henry Gawdy the Church is void and the King Presents again and was disturbed by Sir Henry For that the King brought a Quare Impedit and Adjudged That the Presentation of the King within the Six months was not an Usurpation But if he had Presented in his own right there should have been an Usurpation When a Title by Lapse is in the King if any Present the King may remove him during his life by Quare Impedit All this appears by Baskervil's Case but if the Incumbent die the term of the King is gone and if
for the avoiding of Leases made by a Parson by his Absence from his Living by the space of eighty daies in one year and also shews that one Stallowe who was Parson of Sharrington to whom these Tithes did belong and in whose Right the Defendant claimed them was Absent from his Parsonage by the space of eighty daies in one year and shews in what year and so by this his interest determined and Agreement with the Plaintiff by this made void but they found further as the Plaintiff made it to appear That Stallowe the Parson of Sharrington was not Absent in manner as it was alledged for that they found that he did dwell in another Town adjoyning but that he came constantly to his Parish-Church and there read Divine Service and so went away again They did also find hat he had a Parsonage-house in Sharrington fit for his habitation and whether this were an Absence within the Statute as to avoid his Lease they left that to the Judgment of the Court Yelverton Justice This is a good Non-Residency within the Statute of 21 H. 8. cap. 13. but not an Absence to avoid a Lease made within the Statute of 13 Eliz. cap. 20. It cannot be said here in this Case that he was Absent for he came four daies in every week and in his Parish-Church did read Divine Service Williams Justice upon the Statute of 13 and 14 Eliz the Parson ought not to be Absent from his Church eighty daies together in one year à Rectoria sua but this is not so here for he came to his Church and read Divine Service there every Sunday Wednesday Friday and Saturday and therefore clearly this cannot be such an Absence within the scope and intention of these Statutes as thereby to avoid his Lease Yelverton Justice he ought to be Absent eighty daies together per spatium de Octogin diebus ultra and this to be altogether at one time and so the same ought to have been laid expresly the which is not so done here for that it appears here that he was at his Parsonage-house and did read Prayers every Sunday Wednesday Friday and Saturday and so the whole Court were clear of Opinion that this Absence here as the same appeared to be was not such an Absence by the space of eighty daies in one year to avoid his Lease within the said Statute and so the Defendants Plea in Barr not good and therefore by the Rule of the Court Judgment was entered for the Plaintiff 17. An Information was Exhibited against Two Parsons by J. S. upon the Statute of 21 H. 8. cap. 13. against one of them for Non-Residency and against the other for taking of a Farm the one of them pleaded Sickness and that by the Advice of his Physicians he removed into better Air for Recovery of his health and this is justifiable by the whole Court vid. more for this Coke 6. par fo 21. in Butler and Goodall's Case The other pleaded That he took the Farm for the maintenance of his House and Family And this also is justifiable by the Opinion of the whole Court Crooke moved the Court for the Defendants That the Plaintiff was a Common Informer and that he did prefer this Information against them only for their vexation and so to draw them to compound with him as formerly he hath so done by others for which they prosecuted an Indictment in the Countrey upon the Statute of 18 Eliz. cap. 5. made to punish Common Informers for their Abuses The whole Court did advise them to prosecute this Indictment against him Crooke moved for the Defendants That in regard the Informer is a man of no means that the Court would order him to put in sufficient Sureties to answer Costs if the matter went against him and that then the Defendants would presently answer the Information Williams Justice nullam habemus talem legem this is not to be done but the Rule of the Court was That the Defendants should not answer the Information until the Informer appeared in person 18. In an Action of Covenant the Plaintiff in his Declaration sets forth that the Defendant was Parson of D. and did Covenant That the Plaintiff should have his Tithes of certain Lands for thirteen years and that afterwards he Resigned and another Parson Inducted by which means he was ousted of his Tithes and for this cause the Action brought The Defendant pleads in Barr the Statutes of 13 Eliz. cap. 20. and 14 Eliz. cap. 11. for Non-Residency upon which Plea the Plaintiff demurr'd in Law It was urged for the Plaintiff That the Plea in Barr was not good because it is not averred that the Defendant had been Absent from his Parsonage by the space of Eighty daies in a year for otherwise the Covenant is not void by the Statutes For the Defendant it was alledged That the pleading of the Statute of 13 Eliz. is idle but by the Statute of 14 Eliz. this Covenant is made void for by the Statute all Covenants shall be all one with Leases made by such Parsons And in this case if this had been a Lease this had been clearly void by Surrender of the Parson and so in case of a Covenant Doderidge and Houghton Justices The Statutes of 13 and 14 Eliz. do not meddle with Assurances at the Common Law nor intended to make any Leases void which were void at the Common Law and therefore this Covenant here is not made void by the Statute unless he be Absent Eighty daies from his Parsonage Coke Chief Justice agreed with them herein They all agreed in this Case for the Plaintiff and that by the Preamble of 14 Eliz. it is shewed the intent of the Statute to be to make Covenants void within the Provision of 13 Eliz. by Absence for Eighty daies And Judgment in this Case was given for the Plaintiff CHAP. XXIX Of Abbots and Abbies also of Chauntries and of the Court of Augmentations 1. Abbot what why so called the several kinds thereof and how many anciently in England 2. A famous Abbot anciently in Ireland The manner of their Election prescribed by the Emperour Justinian Anciently the Peers of France were frequently Abbots 3. The ancient Law of King Knute concerning Abbots 4. The Abbot with the Monks making a Covent were a Corporation 5. Abbots were either Elective or Presentative they were Lords of Parliament How many Abbies in England and which the most Ancient Founded by King Ethelbert 6. Chaunter and Chauntries what and whence so called their use and end 47 belonging anciently to St. Pauls in London when and by what Laws their Revenues were vested in the Crown 7. Before King John's time Abbots and Priors were Presentative afterwards Elective 8. Six Differences taken and Resolved in a Case at Law touching Chauntries 9. Certain Cases in Law touching Lands whether under pretence of Chauntries given by the Statute to the King or not 10. What the Court of Augmentations was the end
Canterbury to whose Archbishop it was directed Lindw c. nuper Abbates de Decim And in the Second Lareran Council holden An. 1120. being nigh 60 years before that abovesaid it was Decreed by the said Innocent 3. That the Religious persons viz. the Cistertians Hospitallers Templers and those of St. Johns of Jerusalem which by the Popes Paschal and Adrian were exempted from payment of Tithes should pay the same unto the Parochial Incumbents whereby a Parochial Right of Tithes is settled by a Lateran Council 11. At the Common Law it seems a Parson cannot make a Lrase Parol of his Tithes but may discharge them per parol for in Bellam's Case against Belthrop it was Ruled by Doderidge Jones and Whitlock Justices That where the Defendant in a Trover and Conversion of certain Loads of Fetches justified under the Lord Clare by a Demise per parol for Tithes of Grain for one year made in April that the Lease was not good but altogether void but the Parson may discharge the Parishioner of Tithes per parol or Lease the Rectory consisting of Glebe and Tithes per parol for years 12. In Skelton's Case against the Lady Airie it was said that it was Adjudged Mich. 34 35 Eliz. That a perpetual union of the Parsonage and the Land charged is a sufficient discharge of the Tithes and a Prescription may be well enough to be discharged of the payment of Tithes as it appears by a Case put in the Archbishop of Canterbury's Case Coke lib. 2. G. Crook Counsel è contra conceived that a perpetual Unity was no perpetual discharge and said there was no Judgment given in the Case cited before he also cited 10 H. 7 or 6. where the manner of Tithing is set down he also cited the Bishop of Winchester's Case Coke lib. 2. also the Prior of D. to be Resolved in 40 Eliz. That a Copyholder may Prescribe to be discharged of Tithes by pleading That he was alwaies Tenant by Copy to a Spiritual Corporation and he said That it was Adjudged in Sheddington's Case That if a man Prescribe to be discharged of payment of Tithes by reason of payment of another kind of Tithe that this is not good 13. The Parson of D. Covenanted with one of his Parishioners that he should pay no Tithes for which the Parishioneâ—r Covenanteth to pay to the Parson a certain Annual Sum of money and afterwards the Tithes not being paid the Parson sued him in the Ecclesiastical Court and the other prayed a Prohibition And it was agreed That if no Interest of Tithes pass but a bare Covenant then the party who is sued for the Tithes hath no remedy but a Writ of Covenant And the better opinion of the Court in this Case was That this was a bare Covenant and that no Interest in the Tithes pass 14. In Warner's Case against Barrett in the Ecclesiastical Court it was said by Richardson That before the Stat. of Ed. 6. the proper Suit for Tithes was there and if they allow not one Witness to prove payment a Prohibition shall be granted And he put Morris and Eaton's Case in the Bishop of Winchester's Case where it was Ruled if the Spiritual Court will not allow that Plea which is good in our Law a Prohibition lies as in case of Tithes 15. It was moved for a Prohibition because a Parson had Libelled against a Parishioner for Tithe-wool of Rotten-sheep which he ought not to have because he shall have Tithe for the same thing at Shearing-time afterwards as where Tithe is paid for the Cuttinâ—s of Grass it shall not be afterwards paid for the After-math It seemed otherwise to Doderidge and Jones because it is for the same thing there but here the Parson hath no recompence for the Wool And Jones said That if the Parishioner sell Sheep the Parson shall have allowance of the Tithes thereof after the shearing and upon this point a Prohibition was denied Secondly there is a Custome that if a Parishioner hath three Calves he shall pay a peny for the Tithe thereof if seven Calves then one Calf The Parson sued for one Calf because the Parishioner had three one year and four another and for that he had no Tithe for the first three And thereupon a Prohibition was granted 16. In Huddleston and Hills Case it was said That if a man Sue in the Ecclesiastical Court for Tithes of Headlands the Defendant may have a Prohibition but he ought then to suggest That they are but small Headlands and that there is a Custome of Discharge in consideration that he paid Tithes in kind of Meadows And in this case Williams said That if a man keep Sheep in one Parish until shearing time and then sell them into another Parish in this case the Vendee shall pay the Tithe-wool to the Parish where they were depastured in the greater part of the time of the growing of the Wool And in the Case of one Nicholas and W. Ward it was agreed That Tithe Lamb and Wool was included within Small Tithes 17. In Banco Regis a Prohibition was prayed because a Parson had Libelled in the Ecclesiastical Court for the Tenth part of a Bargain of Sheep which had depastured in the Parish from Michaelmass to Lady-day and the party surmized that he would pay a Tenth of the Wool of them according to the Custome of the Parish But the Prohibition was denied for as Doderidge Justice said By this way the Parson shall be defrauded of all if he shall not have his Recompence for now the Sheep are gone to another Parish and he cannot have any Wool at this time because it was not the time of shearing Nota per Whitlock de animalibus inutilibus the Parson shall have the Tenth part of the Bargain for Depasturing as Horses Oxen c. But de animalibus Vtilibus he shall have the Tithe in specie as Cows Sheep c. 18. The Rector of the Church of D. Libelled in the Ecclesiastical Court for the Tithes of a Riding-Nagg where the Case was That a man lett his Land reserving the running of a Horse for some time when he had occasion to use him there The Desendant shewed this matter in the Court by his Council and prayed a Prohibition and abetts that for the same Land in which the Horse went he paid Tithes And by the Court nigh London a man wil take 100 or 200 Horses to Grass now he shall pay Tithes for them otherwise the Parson shall be deseated But in this Case if the Desendant alledge and prove that it was a Nagg for labour and not for profit a Prohibition lies 19. In the Case of Bowry against Wallington where W. had Libelled in the Ecclesiastical Court against B. for the Tithes of Wool and Lamb and B. upon suggestion of a Modus Decimandi obtained a Prohibition and had an Attachment and declared upon it
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
not power to meddle with them 2 It was Resolved That a Reservation by a Lessee for life who Leases for years to A. is not sufficient to bind him in Reversion to pay Tithes according to that rate 3 That a Rent for half a year and afterwards for another half year is a yearly Rent within the meaning of the Decree And note as the same was last Lett is not intended last before the Decree but before the Demand of the Tithes 71. It was found upon a Special Verdict That the Parson of the Parish makes A. Collector of Tithes and that A. had Licensed a Parishioner to carry away his Corn without setting â—orth of Tithes By the Court clearly that License is void vid. 5 E. 3. 63. Plow 104. That a Collector of Rents cannot make an Acquittance and discharge them And a Consultation was awarded 72. Baron and Feme Lessees of a Parsonage c. The Parishioner sets forth the Tithes fraudulently and presently takes them away again as it appears upon the Evidence And the Husband only brought the Action upon 2 Ed. 6. for the treble Dammages And it was Resolved That Debt lies for treble Dammages upon such a fraudulent setting forth of Tithes although that the clause of Treble Dammages speaks nothing of Fraud But 2 it was Resolved That the Husband and Wife ought to have joyned in the Action because it is not a thing in possession And if the Husband dies the Wife shall have the Dammages and not the Executor of the Husband 73. A Prohibition was prayed upon a Surmize That the Tithes for which the Suit was belonged to the Vicar and not to the Parson By the Court That a Consultation shall be granted for the Right of Tithes is confessed And whether they belong to the Parson or the Vicar that is meerly Spiritual And that so it was Ruled in one Bushel's Case the Parson of Pancras and in one Milbray's Case it was Adjudged accordingly 74. By the Court That a Prohibition shall not be granted upon a bare Surmize that he is sued for Tithes by the Parson of D. of Lands in the parish of S. unless it appears in the Pleading in the Spiritual Court For they there shall not be Judges of the bounds of the Parish Vid. 5 H. 5. 10. 22 E. 4. 24. 75. A Prohibition was pray'd upon a Suit in the Ecclesiastical Court for Tithes in kind of a Park now converted into Tillage upon a Surmize de Modo Decimandi to pay a Buck and a Doe for all Tithes And allowed by the Court and agrâ—ed 1 Although they are Ferae naturae yet they may be given for Tithes So to pay Pheasants c. 2 Although they are not Tithable of themselves yet they may be given for Modus Decimandi As a great Tree may be given for Tithe of Trees tithable 3 That that is a discharge of the very Soil and a Park is not but a Liberty and the Owner may furnish it with Game when he please But after a Consultation was granted because the Surmize was not proved within the Six months So Adjudged Hill 6. Jac. C. B. The Vicar of Clare in Suffolk who sued for Hops And there also a Prohibition was granted upon such a Surmize But after a Consultation was granted in that Case For the Modus Decimandi was alledged for Discharge of Tithes of Hay and Herbage and not of all Tithes where the Libel was for Tithes of Hops And Coke Chief Justice vouched one Shibden's Case That such a Modus Decimandi generally for the Park is not good if it be disparked But it shall be particularly for all Acres contained in the Park 76. Upon a Surmize to have Prohibition after Sentence at the Ecclesiastical Court Two Judgments were vouch'd upon the Statute 2 E. 6. for not setting forth of Tithes And 43 Eliz. B. R. a Parishioner privately sets forth his Tithes and takes witness of it and immediately after he carries them away that is not a setting forth within the Statute For the words are truly justly and without fraud or covin Vid. 10 H. 4. 2. 2. 44 Eliz. B. R. Bâ—kâ—r's Case A Parishioner sells his Grain upon his Land and after by the command of the Vendee he takes his Corn being severed without setting forth of the Tithes That the Parson may well have an Action against him upon the Statute and shall not be compelled to Sue the Vendee who it may be was not known to him And it is not Traversable if the Tithes were set forth according to 47 Eliz. It was Resolved in Trin. 7 Jac. B. R. in Brickendine's Case against Denwood 77. If a Vicar hath used by Prescription time out of mind c. to have all the Tithes within the Parish except Corn which the Parson appropriate used to have viz. of Hay and also of Hops from the time it came into England which was in the time of H. 8. and of Woâ—d which is a Dying plant and moreover Rape-seed is sown there in the Parish where never any such Seed was sown before nor in England till of late times yet the Vicar shall have the Tithes of that Rape-seed and not the Parson appropriate for that it is within the Prescription although it be a new thing and therefore could not be prescribed singly and for that the Parson is excluded of all except the Corn 78. If Doubt arise de Decimis Garbarum as what shall be intended by Garba it is said that Garba at the Common Law signifies at this day a Sheaf of Corn and the Civilians say Garba signifies such a thing as is bound together in one bundle 79. In the Case between Reynolls and Green it was Adjudged by the Court That Wood in its own nature is Great Tithes notwithstanding if a Vicar be endowed de Minutis Decimis and by virtue of the said Endowment had of a long time used to have Tithe of Wood not exceeding the yearly value of 6 s. 8 d. the usage of Wood shall pass by the words de Minutis Decimis in that case by reason of the small value thereof 80. Where a Parson had Two parts of the Tithes and the Vicar of the same place had the Third and they by several Leases had demised the Tithes to one In this Case the whole Court except Justice Fenner held That although the Parson and Vicar could not joyn in this Case in a Suit of Tithes because they claim them severally by divided rights yet when both their Tithes are conjoyned in one person viz. the Lessee then the interest of their Title is conjoyned also in one who made but one Action for the whole Tithes in that case yet it was agreed by all the Judges that the Plaintiff-Lessee should recover his Tithes in dammages and shall not demand them again in any Suit after a Recovery in this Action 81. It was Agreed by the
interdum vicesima aut tricesima And in Heâ—sloe's Case Co. 9. par it is said That Tithes Quatenus Tithes were Spiritual things and due ex jure Divino and were not accounted as Temporal Inheritances Hence it is That where a Parson leased all his Glebe Lands with all Profits and Commodities rendring 13 s. 4 d. pro omnibus exactionibus demandis and afterwards Libelled in the Spiritual Court against his Lessees for the Tithes thereof It was the Opinion of the Court That Tithes are not things issuing out of Lands nor any Rent or duty but Spiritual and if the Parson doth Release to his Parishioners all Demands in his Lands his Tithes thereby are not extinct and therefore a Consultation was granted And in the like case it hath been Adjudged That the Lessee should pay Tithes to the Parson for that they are jure Divino due and cannot be included in Rent If a Parishioner sets forth his Tithes and sever the Tenth part from the Nine parts justly and truly although he doth not give Personal notice to the Parson nor general notice in the Church of the time of setting forth his Tithes whereby the Parson might be present at the setting of them forth and to see that it be justly done yet it is a good setting forth of the Tithes as in the Case between Chase and Ware in a Writ of Error upon a Judgment in an Action upon the Case against the Parson for leaving his Tithe of Hay upon the Parishioners ground after notice of setting them forth whereby the Parishioner lost his Grass there But it was not alledged that the Parson had notice of the time of setting them forth and yet the Court affirmed the Judgment against the Parson A. Parson in Consideration of 20 s. yearly promised to B. that B. should pay no Tithe for a certain Wood per parol and in Consideration thereof B. promised to pay the 20 s. yearly and this Agreement was during their Lives B. made a Lease at Will of the Wood the Lessee had a Prohibition against him for the Agreement was good and Jermyn demanded what Remedy against the Lesse for the 20 s. Doderidge None but he shall have Action on the Case against B. or his Executors but the Lessee for years may have Action against the Parson if he Sue him in the Ecclesiastical Court. For the Case was There was an Agreement per parol made between S. Parson and B. the Parishioner B. promised to S. for himself his Executors and Assigns to pay him Ten load of Wood and 10 s. for the Tithe of a Wood during the life of S. And S. promised not to Sue him c. for any other Tithe B. dies his Executor made a Lease at Will of the Wood the Question is whether the Tenant at Will may take his Action against the Parson who sued him for other Tithes c. In a Prohibition against a Parson who sued for Tithes it was Surmized That the Clerk of the Parish and his Predecessors Assistants to the Minister had used to have five shillings for the Tithe of the Lands where c. It was the Opinion of the Court That if this Special matter be shewed in the Surmize it might perhaps be good by reason of long continuance But they held that by Common intendment Tithes are not payable to a Parish-Clerk and he is no party in whom a Prescription can be alledged wherefore a Consultation was awarded The Parson of T. sued for Tithe-Wood of the Park of T. for a Prohibition it was surmized That he and all those c. time out of mind c. had used to pay to the Vicar of T. ten shillings yearly for all Tithes of Wood growing in the place and the proof was That he paid ten shillings for discharge of Tithe-Wood in the Park and two other places The Prohibition was denied and a Consultation awarded because the right of Tithes between the Parson and the Vicar came in question and because the party failed in the proof of his Prescription In a Prohibition to stay Suit for Tithes surmizing that he set forth his Tithes and for some reasonable cause he detained part of them And the Parson sued him in the Ecclesiastical Court upon which it was Demurred because by the fetting forth they were Lay-Chattels But the Court held That the Prohibition did not lie for against the party himself who setteth forth his Tithes a Suit is maintainable in the Ecclesiastical Court if he detains them although he might have his Remedy for them at the Common Law Otherwise if they were taken away by a Stranger after they were set forth For a Prohibition it was Surmized That he had used to pay the Tenth sheaf of Corn the Tenth Cock of Hay the Tenth Fleece of Wool and so the like in satisfaction of all Hay Corn Cattel c. And it was held That it was no sufficient Surmize for a Prohibition because that which he used to pay is but the Tenth in kind In Sands and Pruries Case the question was whether Tithes were grantable by Copy It was Objected they could not because it is against the nature of Tithes whereof none could have property before the Council of Lateran and it was impossible there should be any Custome to demise them by Copy when none had interest in them and they cannot be parcel of a Mannor for they are of several natures though united in one mans hands But by the Court Resolved they might be granted by Copy so it had been time so out of mind A Parishioner severed his Tithes but being in a Close the Gate was locked so as the Parson could not come at them The question was whether the Gate were locked or open and thereupon a Prohibition brought The Court was of Opinion that although the Tithes were severed yet they remain Suable in the Ecclesiastical Court and then the other is but a consequent thereof and Triable there and the Prohibition denied In Sharington and Fleetwood's Case it was Resolved That if a Parson Libels for Tithes and a Prohibition is granted and after he Libelleth for the Tithes of another year the first Suit not being determined an Attachment upon the Prohibition lieth against him And in the Case between Talentire and Denton where the Bishop of Carlisle being seized in Fee of Tithes in right of his Bishoprick made a Lease of them for Three Lives rendring the ancient Rent the Tithes having been usually demised for the same Rent It was Resolved That the Lease was not good against his Successor because he had not remedy for the Rent by Distress or Action of Debt Otherwise it had been if only a Lease for years for there Debt lieth for the Rent In Leigh and Wood's Case it was Resolved That if the Owner sets forth his Tithe and a Stranger takes them no Suit shall be for the same in the Ecclesiastical Court
before the Birth of such Child for in that Case he is not reputed a Bastard who cannot inherit Land as Heir to his Father nor can any person inherit Land as Heir to him but one who is Heir of his Body Otherwise it is in case the Child were begotten by him who after the Birth of the Child doth Marry his Mother For in that Case notwithstanding such Marriage subsequent to the Birth the Child is reputed a Bastard in the judgment of the Common Law as being born out of Wedlock though according to the Ecclesiastical Law the Child in that case is reputed as Legitimate But if one Marry a Woman and dye before Night without ever bedding her and she after happen to have a Child within possibility of conception in respect of time computable from such Marriage it seems it shall be accounted his Child and Legitimate 9. If a Child be born within the tenth Month computing thirty days to the Month next after a Mans death it shall be reputed his Child as a Mulier but the most natural time is nine Months and ten days computing twenty eight days to the Month which is forty Weeks or any day in the tenth Month may be natural enough Also the Children begotten under a second Marriage after a Lawful divorce from a former are Legitimate and not Bastards And the Child wherewith the Mother is visibly big when she taketh a second Husband shall be reputed the Child of the former Husband though born after Marriage with the second Otherwise if at her second Marriage she were so privlly with Child as that it could not be discerned understand it with this limitation if by possibility of nature it may be so And if a Widow take another Husband within ten days next after the death of her former and be delivered of a Child eleven days before or after forty Weeks from the death of the said former Husband it shall be reputed the Child not of the former but of the later Husband And in one Thecker and Duncombes Case it was adjudged that a Woman may have a Child in thirty eight Weeks and that by cold and hard usage she may go with Child above forty Weeks which was mention'd by the Court in the Case of one Owen against Jevon in an Action of the Case for saying This is the Whore that my Man C. begat a Bastard on and upon a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in arrest of Judgement that the words are not Actionable because there is no special loss or dammage alledged by the Plaintiff and that in one Lightfoots Case against Pigot it had been ruled that an Action lies not for saying a Woman had a Bastard but it being argued on the other side that the words are Actionable because if they were true the Party of whom they are spoken is punishable by the Statute of 7 Jac. with corporal punishment Judgement was given for the Plaintiff Nisi 10. The punishment of a Woman that hath a Bastard that may be chargeable to the Parish is the House of Correction for one year by the Statute 11. Although in the judgement of the Common Law a Bastard be reputed quasi nullius Filius insomuch that if being seized of Lands in his own right he dye without Issue of his Body they may Escheat yet even by that Law the Bastard in respect of his Mother is said to be a Son But in respect of the the Father he is said to be nullius Filius and therefore in the Case of Ralph Haward and the Lady Anne Powes his Wife in a Writ of Partition it was held that if the Mother dispose of all her Lands holden in Knights Servive to her Bastard-daughter by conveyance in her life-time that the same is out of the Statute of 32 H. 8. because she is but a meer Stranger to the Father because nullius Filia and the said Statute speaks of Lawful generation And in the 39 Ed. 3. 42. in a Praecipe where a Bastard was named Filius J. S. the Writ for that reason did abate For the same reason also it is that in a conveyance by a Father to his Bastard-son natural affection is not a sufficient consideration for that he is a Stranger in Law although he be a Son in Nature And yet it seems if a Grant be made to a Bastard by the Sirname of him who is supposed to beget him it is good if he be known by such Name and yet in truth he is nullius filius And if Husband and Wife divorced causa Praecontractus the Issue hath lost his Sirname for Cognomen Majorum est ex sanguine tractum and the Issue now is Bastard and nullius filius yet because he had once a Lawful Sirname it is a good ground of reputation to make him a reputed Son which is a good Name of purchase And it hath been resolved that a Child begotten by a second Husband living the former of a Woman divorced from the former causa Praecontractus is legitimate and no Bastard But in another case that a Child begotten after Marriage solemniz'd infra annos nubiles and for that cause after divorced is illegitimate and a Bastard 12. A. takes B. to Wife and dies B. after forty Weeks and ten Days is delivered of a Daughter The question is whether the Daughter shall be Heir to her Father or a Bastard The Affirmative prevails and such a Child may be lawful Daughter and Heir to her Father for a Post-natus that is born after the forty Weeks may as well be an Heir as an Ante-natus that is born at the end of seven Months And a Child may be legitimate although it be born the last day of the tenth Month after the conception thereof computing the Months per menses solares non lunares according to the report given upon Oath by the learned Physicians in Alsop's Case If a Man hath Issue born by his Wife forty Weeks and eight Daies after his death as if he dye the three and twentieth of March and the Issue is born the ninth of January next following that Issue shall be held Legitimate for it may be Legitimate by nature and it seems the Common Law doth not limit any certain time for Legitimate Infants to be born p upon evidence at the Barr which concern'd the Heir of one Andrews it was resolved by the Court that Dr. Paddey and Dr. Momford Physicians should being first sworn in that case inform the Court upon their Oaths whether according to Nature such Issue may be Legitimate and they said that the exact time of the birth of an Infant is 280. dayes from the conception viz. nine Months and ten Days after conception accounting it by the Solar months viz. 30. days to each month but it is Natural also if he be born any time of 10 Months viz. in 40 Weeks for by such
causes of Divorce Cod. lib. 5. tit 17. l. 8. But the Canon Law decrees otherwise In the time of Ed. 1. William de Chadworth was Divorced because he carnally knew the Daughter of his Wife before he Married her Mother The Stat. of 1 Jac. cap. 11. is the first Act of Parliament that was made against Polygamy Polygamia est plurium simul virorum uxorumve connubium The difference between Bigamy or Trigamy c. and Polygamy is Quia Begamus seu Trigamus c. est qui diversis temporibus successive duas seu tres c. uxores habuit Polygamus qui duas vel plures simul duxit uxores And if the Man be above the Age of fourteen which is his Age of Consent and the Woman above the Age of twelve which is her Age of Consent though they be within the Age of twenty one yet they are within the danger of the Stat. of 1 Jac. cap. 11. Co. Inst Par. 3. Cap. 27. vid. Instit par 1. Sect. 104. 3. This matter of Divorce hath often ministred occasion for high debates and altercations touching second Marriages As whether a Divorce by reason of Adultery in either of the Married Parties doth so dissolve the Marriage à vinculo as that it may be lawful for the Innocent Party to Marry again during the others life By the 107 th Canon It is provided that in all Sentences for Divorce security be given and Bonds taken for not Marrying during each others life By enjoyning such security to be given and such Bonds to be taken This seems to be a Penal Canon viz. pecuniarily Penal whoever therefore breaks the Law incurrs the penalty and whoever suffers the penalty doth answer and satisfie the Law which before he had infring'd a penalty expressed or implied provided for in and annexed unto a Law that is in it self prohibitory seems to create some qualification of that legal prohibition Prohibitio vim suam exercere potest per poenam vel expressam vel arbitrariam Et hoc genus Leges Imperfectas vocat Vlpianus quae fieri quid vetant sed factum non rescindunt So Grotius Grot. de jure Bel. Pacis lib. 2. cap. 5. Sect. 16. But to speak a little nigher to the point in hand it is Grotius again in the same place Si Lex humana conjugia inter certas personas contrahi prohibeat non ideo sequitur irritum fore Matrimonium si re ipsa contrabatur sunt enim diversa prohibere irritum quid facere The Laws whether Ecclesiastical or Temporal are not of any private interpretation yet to speak herein only hypothetically if this be interpretative as a penal Canon by vertue of the said Security and Bond then apposit and observable is that which Grotius hath in another place in Casu Legis Paenalis his words are these viz. Rex qui est Auctor Legis ubi Regni ipsius personam auctoritatem sustinet qua talis est potest legem etiam totam tollere quia Legis humanae natura est ut à voluntate humana pendeat non in Origine tantum sed in duratione Sicut autem totam Legem tollere potest ita vinculum ejus circa personam aut factum singulare manente de caetero lege Dei ipsius exemplo Qui Lactantio teste legem cum poneret non utique ademit sibi omnem potestatem sed habet ignoscendi licentiam Imperatori inquit Augustinus Licet revocare sententiam Reum mortis absolvere ipsi ignoscere Causam explicat Quia non est Subjectus Legibus qui habet in potestate Leges ferre Grot. ibid. de Paenis cap. 20. Sect. 24. How farr the power of Princes may extend it self in this matter is not before us But clear it is that all such as acknowledge the Regal Supremacy will withall confess that his Majesty hath more right to dispence with Canons within his own Dominions ex plenitudine potestatis Regalis than was here formerly exercised ex usurpatione potestatis Papalis In all Laws that are both Prohibitory and Penal as they are of the more force by reason of their Prohibitory quality so they seem to abate of that force by reason of the annexed penalty for he that suffers the penalty satisfies the Law though he transgress the Command The Statute of primo Jacobi hath a Proviso or exception to second Marriages by persons legally Divorced no Caitons or Constitutions prevail or are executable in repugnancy to the Kings Prerogative or to the Laws or Statutes of this Realm That Statute of primo Jacobi prohibiting second Marriages during the Life of each other doth not only not extend to persons legally Divorced but as to such it is with an exception limitation or proviso as aforesaid Sir Ed. Coke taking notice hereof in Porters Case reports that that Statute extends only to persons which are Divorced by Sentence in the Spiritual Court And that distinction of Total and Partial Divorce Or that vel à vinculo vel à Mensa Thoro will not it seems satisfie all Judgments some alledging that ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemus applying that Rule ad Evangelium also and thence will not be perswaded but that the innocent party in Causa Divortii ob Adulterium may Marry again altera parte existente because though they know it to be otherwise by Text Canonical yet know not where to find it so by Text Scriptural and specially because they find a Proviso in the said Statute of primo Jacobi that the parties Divorced by sentence if he take another Wife or she take another Husband shall not be within the danger of the Statute And that this extends to every manner of Sentence of Divorce and not to any particular cause of Divorce Cajetan though of the Roman Church yet on the 19 th of Matthew saith Intelligo ex hac Domini Jesu Christi lege licitum esse Christiano dimittere uxorem ob fornicationem carnalem ipsius uxoris posse aliam ducere and soon after adds Non solum miror sed stupeo quod Christo clare excipiente causam fornicationis torrens Doctorum non admittat illam Mariti libertatem This Question Whether after Divorce for Fornication it be lawful to Mary again during the Lives of the parties Divorced is at large handled by the learned Doctor Hammond in his Treatise of Divorces where he says that Mat. 19. 9. and Mark 10. 6. are two places of such perspicuity one Cause of Divorce allowed the Christians that great Breach of the Conjugal Vow and whosoever Divorces and Marries again save in that one Case punctually named committeth Adultery that as no Paraphrase can make them more Intelligible So there is but one Question that can reasonably be started in them viz. Whether he that puts away his Wife on this one authentick cause be so perfectly freed from the Conjugal Vow and Bands that
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
if the Parson will plead such Presentation he should be prejudiced and here by the Incumbency the words of the Statute will not be satisfied c. Also it seemeth that if I. S. hath an Adowson and A. purchase the next avoidance to the intent to present B. and the Church becomes void and A. presents B. this is Simony by averment as by good pleading the Presentation of B. shall be adjudged void c. Tanfield accordingly as this Case is here is Simony by the Civil Law and the party had his Benefice by Simony although he be not cognusant thereof Secondly admit here was not Simony by the intendment of the Civil Law yet the Statute hath made an avoidance of the Benefice in this Case although it be not Simony for the Statute speakes not one word of Simony throughout the Act and yet by express words it doth avoid such Presentations as this is and as to the Civil Law such Benefice is to be made void by Sentence Declaratory but it is not void ipso facto as it seems in the Case where a common person was consenting to the Simony but the text of the Civil Law says expresly that the Church ought not to be filled Corruptive or by corruption and the Civil Law expresseth such a person as in this Case by Simoniace promotus and calls him who is Particeps Criminis Simoniacus and he who is Simoniacus is by the Civil Law deprived not only of the Benefice ipso facto but also is deprived to be a Minister and adjudged guilty in culpa poena Petrus Benefieldus saith that if a Friend give money to a Patron to make a promise to him c. and the Incumbent pays it such an Incumbent is Simoniacus by the Civil Law and so if the Incumbent pay the money not knowing it till after the induction yet he is Simoniacus and by him if a Friend give money and the Parson is thereupon presented though the Parson knew not of the money given yet he shall be deprived of the Benefice and this difference was certified by Anderson and Gawdy to the Council-Table upon a Reference made to them by the King touching the filling of Benefices by corrupt means And the Statute of purpose forbears to use the word Simony for avoiding of nice construction in the Civil Law as to that word and therefore the makers of the Act set down plainly the words of the Statute that if any shall be promoted for money c. So that by these words it is not material from whom the money comes and then in such Cases for the avoiding of all such grand Offences a liberal Construction ought to be made as hath been used in such cases c. for which and many other reasons mentioned in this Report he commanded Judgment to be entred for the Plaintiff 15. Sr. George Cary being seised of an Advowson granted the next Avoidance to his second Son and died and after the Son corruptly agreed with I. S. to procure the said I. S. to be presented to this Benefice and the second Brother knowing thereof it was agreed that for the perfecting of the agreement the second Brother should surrender his Grant and Interest to the elder Brother which elder Brother not knowing of the said corrupt agreement presented the said I. S. who was Instituted c. all shall be void for he is here presented by reason of this corrupt agreement between the Patron who then was and the Parson and the elder Brother was only used to convey a bad gift by a good hand and all had reference to the corrupt agreement with the Assent of the Patron who then was 16. The King brought a Quare Impedit against the Archbishop of Canterbury Sr. John Hall and Richard Clark for the Church of M. and declares that Richard White was seised of the Mannor to which the Advowson belonged And the 6. Jac. by Indenture he covenanted to stand seised to the use of himself and his Wife for their lives and to the heirs of Richard White And after White presents one Boynton and dyes and his Wife marries with Sr. John Hall who the first of June 6. Jac. by deed grants proximam Adocationem to two to this intent that he might receive of such a Parson that he presented all money as should be agreed between Grantor and Grantee And that this was done Bointon lying in extremis And then the 26. Jan. 16. Jac. there was a corrupt agreement between Sr. John Hall and one of the Grantees that for 200 l. to be paid by the Clerk Blundell that the other Grantee should present him And the first of February Blundel pays Sr. John Hall the money and the second day he was Presented Instituted and Inducted accordingly And that upon this it appertained to the King to present The Bishop pleads but as Ordinary Sr. John Hall makes a title and traverses the corrupt agreement The Incumbent pleads by Protestation that there was not any corrupt agreement as it was alledged and not answers whether the money were paid or not but that he is Parson Imparsonee of the Presentment of But 16. Jac. after such an agreement scil 17. Febr. he was presented by the Letters Patents of the King to his Church and never answers to the Simony and it was held by the Court to be naught and only pleaded to hinder the Execution before the Justices of Assize if the trial went against the Patron And further in that Case between Hall and Blundell it was said by Davenport that this Parson being presented by simony is disabled to this Church for ever and cannot be presented to this Church again as it was adjudged in the Lord Windsors Case But it was said by Richardson if he had said absque hoc That he was in ex Presentatione of c. it had been good enough which was granted Henden two exceptions had been taken 1. That the Incumbent doth not shew what Estate or Interest the King had to present him which doth not need if the King brought a Quare Impedit then it is a good answer to say that he is in of his Presenting But if it be brought by a stranger then he ought to shew the title in his Presentment And he alledged the Statute of 25. E. 3. which enables the Incumbent to plead by Writ of the Law 41. Eliz. There was a Quare Impedit brought for the Church of Danell a presentation by the King was pleaded without making a title and it was admitted good And in many Cases it is more safe not to make a title 2. Because that he pleaded a Presentation by the King he is disabled As to that he said that before he be convicted of Simony he may be presented But by Crook in Sathers Case that if he be presented before conviction yet it is a void Presentation And it was so agreed by the Court and they resolved the plea was nought because he
He may have a Writ out of Chancery to Absolve him 14 H. 4. fol. 14. And with this agrees 7 Ed. 4. 14. 2 When he is Excommunicated against the Law of this Realm so that he cannot have a Writ de Cautione admittenda then he ought Parere mandatis Ecclesiae in forma Juris i. e. Ecclesiastici where in truth it 's Excommunicatio contra Jus formam Juris i. e. Communis Juris But if he shew his Cause to the Bishop and request him to assoil him either because he was Excommunicate after the Offence pardoned or that the Cause did not appear in Ecclesiastical Cognizance and he refuse he may have as the Lord Coke sayes an Action sur le Case against the Ordinary and with this agrees Dr. Stu. lib. 2. cap. 32. fo 119. 3 If the party be Excommunicated for none of the Causes mentioned in the Act of 5 Eliz. cap. 23. then he may plead this in the Kings Bench and so avoid the Penalties in the Act. Note It was Resolved by the Court c. That where one is Cited before the Dean of the Arches in cause of Defamation for calling the Plaintiff Whore out of the Diocess of London against the Statute of 23 H. 8. and the Plaintiff hath Sentence and the Defendant is Excommunicated and so continues Forty daies and upon Certificate into Chancery a Writ of Excommunicato Capiendo is granted and the Defendant taken and Imprisoned thereby That he shall not have a Prohibition upon the Statute of 23 H. 8. for no Writ in the Register extends to it but there is a Writ there called De Cautione admittenda de parendo Mandatis Ecclesiae when the Defendant is taken by the Kings Writ De Excommunicato Capiendo and to assoil and deliver the Defendant 25. Where the Court of B. R. was moved for the Bailing of one who was taken by force of a Capias de Excommunicato Capiendo upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. cap. 23. and came to the Barr by a Habeas Corpus Williams Justice He that is taken by force of a Capis de Excommunicato Capiendo is not Bailable upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. cap. 23. which Statute doth only dispense with the Forfeiture of the Ten pounds and such a person is not Bailable and as to the other matter the same remains as it was before at the Common Law and the Statute of 5 Eliz. dispenseth only with the penalty of Ten pounds Yelverton Justice of a contrary Opinion and that in this case he is Bailable Flemming Chief Justice This is a Case which doth deserve very good consideration and that therefore he would consider well of it and also of the Statute of 5 Eliz. before he would deliver his Opinion Williams Justice clearly he is not Bailable in this Case Afterwards at another time it was moved again unto the Court to have him Bailed Yelverton Justice That he is Bailable and so was it Resolved in one Keyser's Case where he was taken by a Writ De Excommunicato Capiendo brought hither by a Habeas Corpus and upon Cause shewed he was Bailed by the Court de die in diem but neither the Sheriff nor any Justice of Peace in the Countrey can Bail such a one but this Court here may well Bail as in the Case before de die in diem It was further alledged here in this That in the Ecclesiastical Court they would not there discharge such a one being taken and Imprisoned by force of such a Writ De Excommunicato Capiendo without a great Sum of Money there given and a Bond entered into for the same otherwise no discharge there Yelverton Justice and the whole Court The Bishop ought not to 〈◊〉 such a Bond for the performance of their submission The Rule of the Court here in this was That upon their submission they shall be Absolved without any such Bond entred into Flemming Chief Justice They shall Absolve them and if they perform not according to their promise and undertaking they 〈…〉 again by the Writ De Corpore Excommunicato Capiendo but the Bishop is to take no Bond of them for their Absolution to perform their Submission the taking of such Bond by them being against the Law And as to the Bailment all the Judges except Williams Justice did agree that he was Bailable and so by the Order and Rule of the Court he was Bailed vid. Bulstr Rep. par 1. fo 122. Pasch 9 Jac. in Case of Hall vers King CHAP. XLIII Of the Statutes of Articuli Cleri and Circumspecte agatis 1. Several Statute-Laws relating to Ecclesiastical persons and things enacted under the Title of Articuli Cleri in the Ninth year of King Ed. 2. 2. Some other Statute-Laws touching Ecclesiastical matters made the Fourteenth year of King Ed. 3. 3. The Ratification and Confirmation of the 39 Articles of Religion The Subscription required of the Clergy 4. Certain Cases wherein a Prohibition doth not lie to the Ecclesiastical Courts according to the Statute of Circumspecte agatis made the Thirteenth of King Ed. 1. And in what case a Consultation shall be granted 1. THese are certain Statutes made in the time of King Ed. 1. and Ed. 2. touching Persons and Causes Spiritual and Ecclesiastical By the latter of these it is Enacted 1 That upon demand of Tithes Oblations c. under that Name a Prohibition shall not lie unless the demand be of money upon the Sale thereof 2 That upon debate of Tithes amounting to a Fourth part of the whole and arising from the Right of Patronage as also upon demand of a Pecuniary penance a Prohibition may lie Not so in case of demand of money voluntarily accorded unto by way of Redemption of Corporal penance enjoyned 3 That upon demand of money Compounded for in lieu of Corporal penance enjoyned for the Excommunication for laying violent hands on a Clerk a Prohibition shall not lie 4 That notwithstanding any Prohibition the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction may take cognizance and correct in Cases of Defamation and the money paid for redeeming the Corporal penance thereon enjoyned may receive notwithstanding a Prohibition be shewed 5 That no Prohibition shall lie where Tithe is demanded of a Mill newly erected 6 That in cases of a Mixt cognizance as in the Case aforesaid of laying violent hands on a Clerk whereby the Kings Peace is broken and such like the Temporal Court may discuss the same matter notwithstanding Judgment given by the Spiritual Court in the case 7 That the Kings Letters may not issue to Ordinaries for the discharge of persons Excommunicate save only in such Cases as wherein the Kings Liberty is prejudiced by such Excommunication 8 That Clerks in the Kings Service if they offend shall be correct by their Ordinaries but Clerks during such time as they are in his Service shall not be oblig'd to Residence at their Benefices 9 That Distresses shall not be taken in the Ancient
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
answers nothing to the Simony for the Protestation is not any answer wherefore Judgment was given for the Plaintiff 17 F. Libels in the Ecclesiastical Court for Tithes and a Prohibition was prayed upon a Suggestion that he came to the Church by Simony By the Court a Prohibition ought to be granted upon a surmise only that he came to the Church by Simony Then Honden shewed that it was found by verdict in the Kings Bench that he came in by Simony And upon that verdict there was a Decree in the Court of Wards accordingly And then the Court inclined to grant a Prohibition And the Case here was that F. being convicted of Simony the King presents Clapthorn who was Admitted Instituted and Inducted And afterwards he takes another Benefice above the value of 8 l. by which the other was void Yet by the Assent of the Lord Windsor Patron F. continued possession And by Richardson he cannot be any way removed until Lapse incurr 18. It was said by the Court in Sr. John Paschall's Case against Clark upon evidence that 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 that that is Simony within the Statute of 21. Eliz. cap. 16. 19. A. Scised of a Mannor with an Advowson Appendant S. comes to A. and promises that if he would present him c. after the death of the now Incumbent he would give him Seventy pounds to which he agreed And upon that it was agreed between them that the next avoidance shall be granted to B c. the Incumbent dies B. presents S. who continues lacumbent from 27 Eliz. until the 7 th of King James Than A. grants the Mannor cam pertinent to Winchcombe in Fee S. the Incumbent dies 7 Jac. And the King presents Pulleston by the Title of Simony and Winchcombe brought a Quare Impedit and adjudged that it doth not lie In which Case two points were resolved 1. That that is Simony First because there was a corrupt Contract for the Advowson Note that in the Stat. of 31 Eliz. there is not word of Simony for by that means then the Common Law would have been Judge what should have been Simony and what not Secondly although that the prochein Avoidance might be bought and sold bona fide without Simony yet it was so granted to B. to perform the corrupt Contract 2 Jac. was vouch'd that it the Father purchas'd the prochein Avoidance and presents his Son after the death of the Incumbent that is not Simony and that it was accordingly judged in 42 and 43 Eliz. It was Smith and Shelborns Case But by Hubbard that if in the grant of the Prochein Avoidance it appears that it was to the intent to present his Son or his Kinsman and it was done accordingly that is Simony In the 7th Jac. In the Exchequer Calvert against Parkinson The Cosin of C. being Clerk comes to the Grantee of the prochein Avodance and promises him Twenty pounds and Twenty pounds per an if he will present C. to the Church quando c. C. not knowing any thing of the Contract is presented accordingly This is Simony Fortiori in this Case where S. himself who was to be presented was party to the first motion of the Contract for presentation 2. It was resolved that the death of the Simoniacal Incumbent doth not hinder but that the King may well present for the Church was never full as to the King and that Turn is preserved to the King by force of the Statute yet it seems the Church is so full that a Stranger may not present for usurpation for it is not like 7 Rep. 28. where the King is to present by lapse And there are many Cases wherein the Church may be full or void in effect when there is a Simoniacal Incumbent Hubbard said that if A. be obliged to present B c. and he presents by Simony yet the Obligation is forfeited c. The rightful Patron may have a Quare Impedit after the Six months against the Incumbent of an usurper that is in by Simony And by the Court to say the Church was full for Six months is no plea when he is in by Simony Warburton and Hutton cited Doctor Hutchinsons Case 10 Eliz. A Parson preferrs his Bill for Tithes the Parishioner pleads that he was presented by corruption c. and by Simony and a prohibition was granted notwithstanding that the Parson pleaded pardon of the Simony by the King and it seem'd that it was now triable by the Common Law Note 7 H. 7. 37. and Mich. 40. and 41 Eliz. Gregory against Ouldham In debt upon an Obligation to perform certain Covenants which in truth were Simoniacal Contracts and the Plaintiff recovered for it was said that that obligation is collateral and the Law does not at all look upon or take notice of the Simony eo nomine for it is not once named in the Statute but only corrupt giving c. 20. In debt upon an obligation it was said that it was made upon a Simoniacal contract for presentation to the Church with the cure of Souls and so it was for Simony All that was averr'd the Court held to be matter debors and not appear'd within the Deed and for that the Plaintiff had Judgement For no such averment is given by the Statute Note the Statute doth not make the Bond Promise or Covenant void but the Presentation And so adjudged Pasch 40. Eliz. Rot. 1745. C. B. Case of Gregory against Oldbury Co. Inst par 3. cap. 71. 21. If an innocent Incumbent be in by a Simoniacal Contract to which he was no way privy he is not Simoniacus though Simoniace promotus and as he is not Simoniacus so neither Perjurus for Simony seldom goes without some kind of Perjury An Action was brought upon 5 Eliz. for Perjury before one of the Masters of Chancery who had power to take an Oath Adjudged Quod nihil cap. per breve And the reason was because he does not shew that the Oath was in Court. By Whitlock they were called Masters of Chancery because they were Priests and Clergy-men in ancient time and that was the reason that the Lord Chancellor had the disposal of the petty Offices of the King for the preferment of these Clerks that was also the reason that they could not Marry until they were enabled by the Stat. c. 22. Parson L. was convented before the High Commissioners and they would put him to his Oath touching Simony supposing it to be committed by him And a Prohibition was granted that none shall be compelled to accuse himself upon his Oath where he is to incurr a temporal punishment at the Common Law or a temporal loss as in that case of his Church So for Vsury Note Dyer 175. in the Margin And Cook Chief Justice vouch'd 10 Eliz. Smiths Case an Atturney of