may be discerned Whether the Pope may be Simoniacal Q. Whether it be Simony to give money for the Sacrament upon a Death-Bed Whether it be Simony in the Ordinaries or their Officials to take money for Letters of Ordination under Seal Whether it be Simony in Ecclesiasticks to take money for Sermons or Theological Doctrines Whether it be Simony to resign a Benefice reserving a Pension out of it Whether it be Simony to resign or bestow a benefices upon Trust or Confidence With diverse other such Questions in the Canon Law relating to this Subject the Solutions whereof are not of any moment to us who are out of the Pope's Diocess CHAP. XL. Of Blasphemy and Heresie 1. What Blasphemy is and whence so called 2. The several punishments inflicted on Blasphemers 3. How may ways Blasphemy may be 4. What Heresie is a Conjectural derivation of that word Heresie it is Threefold 5. What shall he accounted Heresie what the Lollards of old were and why so called 6. In whom the Jurisdiction of Heresie properly resides 7. A Heretick convicted and so persisting whether according to Law combustable The reason of that severe Law Heresie is Lepra animae 8. An Alphabetical black Catalogue of Hereticks their Errors Heresies and Blasphemies and the times wherein they pester'd the World 9. A Catalogue of Jewish Hereticks but not in any Alphabetical manner as the former 1. BLASPHEMIA 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod laedat famam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as it were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to hurt anothers same or reputation Suidas interpreteth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one who injureth God with contumelious words which is when men detract from God the honour due unto him or attribute any evil to him Blasphemare est tacite vel expresse verbo vel scripto contra deum aliquid contumeliosum dicere Navar. cap. 12. nu 81. Blasphemia est injuriosa in deum locutio vel contumelia in deum verbo irrogata Less lib. 2. de Blasph This is cognizable in the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and by the 109. Canon of the Ecclesiastical Constitutions of the Church of England is among other notorious Crimes to be certified into Ecclesiastical Courts by way of presentment in order to punishment according to Law 2. This Crime of Blasphemy was so odious to the Emperor Justinian that he ordained that the Blasphemer should undergo ultimum supplicium be punished by death for he made it capital Auth. ut non Luxur Coll. 7. By the Ecclesiastical Laws of Keneth King of Scots An. 840. It is provided that he that Blasphemeth shall have his Tongue cut out Blasphemy is speaking Treason against the Heavenly Majesty the belching out of exercrable words against God whereby the Deity is reproached Baldus says that Blasphemy is a kind of Heresie Bald. in L. Qui accusationem C. Qui Accus non posse for which a Lay-man is Anathematized by the Church of God and a Clerk deposed from all Ecclesiastical Orders Can. si quis per capillum 22. q. 1. The Canon Law seems not severe enough in the punishment of this Crime probably for that they of the Roman Church do hold that there is a Blasphemy against Saints and Blasphemia Dei vel sanctorum hath but one and the same punishment with them and that is a solemn and publick penance if the Blasphemy were publickly committed Extra de Maledict c. statuimus And that the World may know how they abominate this sin of Blasphemy they put the Question and demand whether any Priest inferiour to a Bishop can absolve a man from this sin for answer they distinguish and say that if the Blasphemy be publick and notorious it cannot be absolved but by a Bishop but if it were only private and occult non in platea nec in camera multis audientibus then every Priest may absolve it Ant. de pae re si Episcopus lib. 6. Steph. de Gaeta Repet in c. ad Limina 30. q. 1. nu 139. Aquinas reckons it among the Mortal sins 3. Lindwood in his Provincials says that that is Blasphemy quae dicitur irreligiosa reprehensio detractio vel vituperatio but says he to speak properly and strictly Blasphemare est Deo injuriam irrogare which may be done three several ways 1 Aliquid attribuendo quod deo non convenit 2. Ab ea removendo quod deo convenit 3. Creaturae attribuendo illud quod est proprium deo Lindw de Offic. Archipr c. 1. verb. Blasphemia In the Primitive times this sin was punished by a delivering the Offender over unto Satan which was an Ecclesiastical censure by the Greater Excommunication whereby the Offender became unto others as an Heathen and a Publican Mat. 18. 17. and whereby he is dissiranchised of all the Priviledges of the Church 4. Touching Heresie there are various conceptions as to the derivation of that word some are of opinion that the word comes from Error and rectus and that from thence comes Haereticus that is Errans à Recto sive Rectitudine Fidei Catholicae l. 2. in sin C. de Haeretic Others will have the word Heresis to be from heriscor that is divido and thence Heresie to be Divisio ab unitate Fidei Azo Sum. C. eod tit Others will have it to be from haereo Error thence Haeresis quasi adhaesio Erroris and Haereticus quasi adhaerens Errori for Error of it self doth not make an Heretick but adhering to an Error doth Lindw de Haeret. c. 1. And others there are who do conceive that the word Haeresis dicitur ab Electione because an Heretick doth chuse to himself that Opinion which he thinks is best for himself And he that inclines to this Opinion seems to be least in an Error for Haeresis is from the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Optio vel electio secta ab 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eligo Heresie is an Opinion repugnant to the orthodox Doctrine of the Christian Faith obstinately maintain'd and persisted in by such as profess the Name of Christ that Heresie which is commonly called Haeresis univorsa or Heresie in sensu largo is threefold and doth consist either in a mans heart or in his mouth or in his works Under the first of these are comprized all such as are Christians only by Name but not so in truth and in deed under the second are comprehended all vain Swearers Covenant-breakers and indevout approachers to God in his Worship under the third are contained all Hypocrites whose counterfeit devotion without any sincerity in the heart consists only in the simulation of an external work all these are by Lindwood understood in a large sense as Hereticks Lindw de Offic. Archipr c. 1 glos in ver Haeresis But these are not the Hereticks here meant or intended nor indeed are they Hereticks in any proper sense whereby we commonly understand such as Hereticks who maintain and persist in any Opinion contrary to the True Orthodox
Scorto Natus in Ecclesiâ—m Domini usque ad decimam generationem Yet the Pope doth usually dispence with that Canon specially where such Illegitimates live commendably and follow not the vicious practice of their Parents In illis qui paterna vitia non sequuntur possunt suffragari virtutes quae inducent Sâ—mmum Pontificem ad Dispensandum si morum honestas eos Commendabiles reddat c. Presbyterorum 56. Distin And lest such should conceive themselves causlesly injured by that Prohibition the Canonists assign three Reasons for it the one is the Dignity of the Clergy and the Sacraments which ought not to be committed to Infamous persons Another is in detestation of their Parents Crime which commonly extends also to their Children The third is the Parents Incontinency and because the Children do for the most part inherit their Parents Vices cap. Si gens Angelorum 56. Distin Yet a Modern Historian speaking of Pope Leo the Seventh An. 935. says out of Luitprandus that Bozon Bishop of Placentia Theobald of Millain and another great Prelate were all the Bastards of Hugo King of Italy by his three Queens Bezola Rosa and Stephana whom he termed Venus Juno and Semalo vid. Prideaux 's Compend Introduct of Hist p. 106. Edit 5. Next follows the matter of Divorce which is the separation of Married persons by force of the Sentence of an Ecclesiastical Judge qualified to pronounce the same Adultery in either party is the common though not the only cause of Divorce Some there are it seems of great Reputation in the Church for this is Quaestio tam Theologiae quam Juris who positively condemn it as unlawful for a Man or Woman to live with their Husband or Wife respectively if either of them be notoriously guilty of Adultery Of which Opinion was St. Hierom saying That a man is Sub maledictione si Adulteram retineat And St. Chrysostome Fatuus iniquus qui retinet Meretricem Patronus enim Turpitudinis est qui celat Crimen uxoris So that it was none of Cato's wisdom nor any great piece of kindness done his Friend Hortensius to lend him his wife Martia whose Chastity deserv'd a better requital Socrates also is reported to be as kind-hearted in this matter as ever Cato was and they are both said to lend their Wives as freely as a man lends an Utensil As these Wife men were beyond the reach of a Diovorce so they were more serious than to blush at Cornutism the common Fate of such Philosophers St. Basil was of Opinion That it was lawful for a Woman still to cohabit with an adulterous Husband to which purpose he made a Canon and commanded it to be done in his Church as appears in his Epistle to Amphilochius 1. Can. 9. 21. This also was the Sentence of St. Austin to Pollentius and in his Book de Adulterinis Conjugiis David received his wife Michal who had lived with another man St. Basil it seems though he be of opinion that the Woman should still live with the Adulterous Husband yet does not think it fit that the man should be so obliged as to his Adulterous Wife The Council of Eliberis refused to give the Sacrament to a Clergy-man that did not instantly expel from his house his Wife whom he knew to commit Adultery And by the Council of Neo-Caesarea he was to be deposed from his Dignity in the same case In the Council of Trent there was a Canon made having an Anathema added to it which condemned those that say That the Bond of Marriage is dissolved by Adultery and that either of the parties may contract another Matrimony whilst the other liveth And by the Fifth Anathematism of that Council 22. July 1563. were condemned Divorces allowed in Justinian's Code which Anathematism was added at the instance of the Cardinal of Lorain to oppose the Opinion of the Calvinists In the same Council upon the Article of Divorce it was said by one of the Fathers there that the Matrimonial Conjunction was distinguish'd into Three parts the Bond the Cohabitation and the Carnal Copulation inferring that there were as many Separations also and that the Ecclesiastical Prelate had power to separate the Married or to give them a Divorce in respect of the Two latter the Matrimonial Bond still standing sure so that neither can marry again Yet the Gospel admits but of one cause of Divorce viz. Fornication which should seem to be understood de Vinculo because Divorce in the other respects may have many Causes Of all Personal Actions within the Ecclesiastical Cognizance that of Defamation seems to be of the tenderest concern if that be observed which Solomon says That a Good Name is to be chosen before great Riches where by Name nothing can be understood other than a mans Credit Fame and Reputation in the World So that the Inference is clear a Defamer is the worst of Thieves the Sacrilegious ones excepted yet were it not for the sweetness of Revenge and the encouragement of the Law such Actions might be better spar'd than what it costs to maintain them and such ill-scented Suits do savour worse being kept alive in a Tribunal than they would by being buried in Oblivion specially if the Defamed considered that to forget Injuries is the best use we can make of a bad Memory This Defamation is not properly that which we call Detractio for Detractio in its proper signification is alienae famae occulta injusta violatio but Defamation though it be an unjust yet it is not an occult violation of another mans Fame or Reputation they have indeed both the same end but they do not both take the same way to that end they both aim and design the extinguishing or diminishing the Credit and Repute which one man hath in the mind and good opinion of another but the one doth it more openly and publickly at least not in so clandestine way as the other This Defamatio is of near affinity to that which we call Contumelia which is an unlawful violation of a persons Honour and Reputation by undecent and false Speeches Gestures or Actions on purpose to disgrace him only in this also they differ that Defamatio may be of one man to another in the absence of the Defamed but Contumelia is not but to the party present vel absenti tanquam praesenti that is in the prrsence of such as have a relative representation of the person Contumeliously so reproached Touching Actions of Defamation there are two Questions raised rather by the Casuists than Canonists the one Whether the Heirs of the Defamer be obliged to make restitution of Dammage to the Defamed in case the Defamer died before satisfaction made the other Whether satisfaction for the dammage done by Defamation be to be made to the Heirs of the Defamed in case he died before such dammages were recovered by him Although both these Questions are answered in the Negative by
Law Provisional touching the Building of new Chappels 18. Whether a Seat in the Church and Priority in that Seat claimed by Prescription be Triable at the Common Law by Action upon the Case 19. A Case in Law touching a Tax made in a Parish for the making of new Bells for the Church 20. Whether a Tax for Repairs of the Church may be made by the Church wardens alone without the Major part of the Inhabitants 21. Church-Seats in the generality are in the Ordinaries power to dispose 22. Divers other Cases at the Common Law pertinent to the subject of the Premisses 23. In what respects an Inhabitant in one Parish having Land in another may or may not be Taxed as to the Church of that Parish where the Land lies 24. The difference in Law between a Parsons grant to a man his own Tithes and his grant to him the Tithes of another man as to the validity of the Grant 25. Disposal of Seats in the Body of a Church belongs of Common right to the Ordinary of the Diocess 26. In what respect a man inhabiting in one Parish shall be charged towards the Reparation of the Church of another where he hath Land and in what respects not so 27. Rates for Reparation of Churches are cognizable only in the Ecclesiastical Court and no Prohibition notwithstanding any inequality in the Rate 28. Repairers of a Chappel of Ease not discharged thereby of Reparations of the Mother-Church 29. Land in a Parish not to be Rated for the Ornaments of a Church That Rate to be according to the personal Estate 30. In what case a Prohibition lies to a Suit for Reparations of a Church not so as to a Rate made by the Major part of the Parishioners for the Ornaments of the Church 31. The Bounds of a Parish not Triable in the Ecclesiastical Court though the difference be between two Spiritual persons 32. Prohibition where a Vicar sued the Parson Impropriate for Dammages for cutting down the Trees growing in the Church-yard 33. Prescription of Repairing a Chappel of Eâ—se no discharge from repairing the Mother-Church 34. The charge of Repairing a Church refers to Land of providing Ornaments of the Church to the personal Estate and how to be apportioned between Landlord and Tenant 35. Action of Trespas lies for the Heir of such whose Coat-Armor or Monument in Church or Church-yard is by any defaced or demolished be it by the Parson the Ordinary or by any other 36. A Case in Law touching a disturbance of sitting in certain Seats in a Chancel of a Church 37. Certain Cases in Law touching striking in a Church and Church-yard and drawing a Weapon in the same 38. The difference taken between having a Seat in the Isle of a Church and a Seat in the Body of the Curch 39. A Prohibition denied on a Prescription of not Repairing a Mother-Church in regard such Prescription is meerly Spiritual 40. The Ecclesiastical Court not to intermeddle with the Precincts of Parish-Churches 41. Towards Church-Reparations all Lands within the Parish as well of Foreigners as Parishioners are ratably liable 42. Controversies touching Seats in Churches determinable in the Spiritual not Temporal Courts In what Cases the Common Law hath took cognizance thereof 1. CHURCH Ecclesia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the old word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 h. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 h. e. evocare being an Assembly of men gathered out of all Mankind or evocatus per Evangelium or from the Hebrew Cahal h. e. Congregatio the true visible Church being a Congregation of Faithful men in which the pure Word of God is preached and the Sacraments duly ministred according to Christ's Institution in all things necessary to the same This in a Theological sense but the word Church in a Legal sense as here chiefly intended differs from the former as far as Dead Walls do from Living Saints there being no more here designed to be touch'd at than what refers rather to the Place than to the Persons Churches are of three sorts Cathedral Collegiate Parochial The Bishop is the Incumbent of the first Priors and Abbots were and Heads of Colledges are Incumbents of the second and Parsons of the third commonly called a Rectory being either a Parsonage or a Vicarage And that either 1 Ratione dotationis 2 Fundationis 3 Fundi 2. The Emperour Justinian Decreed That the Lands of the Church should not be sold alienated or exchanged unless it were to the Prince's house or to or with another like Religious place and that in equal goodness and quantity or that it were for the Redemption of Captives But by the Statute of primo Jac. the Possessions of the Church are protected from alienation or diminution in all respects and so as that they shall remain and continue according to the true intent of their Foundation to their Successors for ever to the uses and purposes therein limited 3. By the Common Law the Church and Church-yard are it seems the Soyl and Freehold of the Parson but the use of the Body of the Church and the Repairs and Maintenance thereof is common to all the Parishioners albeit the disposal of the Pewes in the Body of the Church or an Isle or Chappel joyning to the Body and the disposing of the charges of the Repairs thereof belong to the Ordinary insomuch that no man can challenge a Seat in the Body of the Church without shewing some special reason for the same All which appears in the Case of Boothby against Baily where Boothby being Executor of Gilbert brought a Prohibition against Baily and his Surmize was That whereas Sir Bernard Whetston was seized of the Mannor of Woodford-Hall and that he and those whose Estate he hath in the same had used time out of mind to have a peculiar Pew in the Body of the Church and that the Defendant by Suit in the Ecclesiastical Court sought to dispossess them of the same And by the Opinion of the whole Court this was no sufficient ground of a Prohibition for though the Church and Church-yard be in Law the Soyl and Freehold of the Parson yet the use of the Body of the Church and the repair and maintenance thereof is common to all the Parishioners And for avoiding of confusion the distribution and disposing of Seats and charges of Repair belong to the Ordinary and therefore no man can challenge a peculiar Seat without a special reason But if it had been Prescribed That Sir Bernard Whetstone c. had used time out of mind at their own costs to maintain that Pew and had therefore had the sole use thereof the Prescription might have stood and been warrant for a Prohibition though the Pew were in the Body of the Church And so it is in the like case of an Isle or Chappel adjoyning to the Body of the Church upon the same difference whether it hath been maintained by the whole Parish or
within the Town or Parish and he and all those whose Estate he hath in the Mansion-house of the Mannor or other House hath had a Seat in an Isle of the Church for him and his Family only and have repaired it at his own proper charges it shall be intended that some of his Ancestors or of the parties whose Estate he hath did build and erect that Isle for him and his Family only and therefore if the Ordinary endeavour to remove him or place any other there a Prohibition as was resolved in Corven's Case will lie It hath also been further Resolved That if any man hath a House in a Town or Parish and that he and those whose Estate he hath in the House hath had time out of mind a certain Pew or Seat in the Church maintained by him and them the Ordinary may not remove him for Prescription according to Sir Ed. Coke maketh Certainty the Mother of Quietness otherwise a Prohibition will also lie in the case But where there is no Prescription there the Ordinary for avoiding of contention in the Church may place the Parishioners in the Church or publick Chappel according to their qualities and degrees And until the Bishop hath consecrated or dedicated Churches or publick Chappels new erected the Law doth not take knowledge of them qua tales for which reason it is That a Church or not a Church a Chappel or not a Chappel is Tried and Certified by the Bishop 10. Touching the Reparation of Churches the cognizance thereof appertains to the Ecclesiastical Court as was Agreed by the Court in Buck's Case against Amcotts where in a Prohibition the Defendant said That in Hornechurch in Essex are Chappels of Ease viz. Rumford and Haveringe Chappels and that they of Haveringe have used time out of mind c. to contribute to the Reparation of Rumford and that in the time of H. 4. virtute Literar patent concurrentibus iis c. And Rumford was pulled down and erected in a more convenient place within this precinct and circuit viz. twenty eight foot longer and fourteen foot broader Noy That it does not lie 1 Virtute Literà r patent in general is not good But the Patent ought to have been shewn in haec verba or produc'd in Court by which the Court might judge For a new Church cannot be erected without Letters Patents because it is a Sanctuary Ve. 5 E. 3. 26. 1 H. 7. 25. 22 E. 4. the Lord Lisle's Case 2. The Prescription is gone by the erecting in another place and longer c. as aforesaid ve 4. Rep. P. 6. And that shall be taken strict Perkins 761. 7 E. 4. 27. 10 E. 3. 23. But the Court was on the contrary because it is pro bono Publico and in such a case a Pleader by Concurrentibus iis is good As in an Union 11 H. 7. 8. And that the Cognizance for Reparation of the Church appertains to the Spiritual Court and is not like the Case of a Tenure 4 Rep. 86. because the Tenant by that is put to a greater charge and no profit or benefit accrues to the Tenant as it does to the Parishioner And Easter Term ensuing a Consultation was granted by the Court He that hath the Impropriation of a Rectory or Parsonage ought to repair the Chancel and so he ought to contribute to the reparation of the Church if he hath any Land in that Village Mich. 18 Jac. B. R. Serjeant Davies Case Roll. Rep. par 2. 11. The Church-wardens of Denford an Ancient Church in the County of Northampton sue the Inhabitants of Kingstead in the same Parish where there was a Chappel of Ease for contribution to repair the Church of Denford And they pray a Prohibition upon suggestion That time out of mind c. they have used to Repair their own Chappel and only a part of the Wall of the Church-yard of the said Church of Denford And it seemed by the better opinion of the Court that it was not good For their Ease shall not be a disease to the rest of the Parishioners For Popham said That the Assent is not requisite to build a Chappel of Ease and then the Ordinary and the Parson cannot charge the Parishioners with greater charge By Yelverton That the Parson ought to repair the Wall of the Church-yard But by Fenner The Parishioners in the Spiritual Court shall be compelled to do it although that the Frank-tenement be in the Parson Yelvert objected and by Kemp secondary That the Parishoners of repair the Wall of the Church-yard Yet now it was ordered that a Prohibition shall be granted and the Dâ—fendants if they please may demurr upon it Note also B. 5 Jac. B. R. a Derbyshire-Case where a Prohibition in such case was denied 12. Two Church-wardens sue S. for Reparation of the Church according to the Tax assest S. pleads he alwaies offered to pay By which the Sentence in the Ecclesiastical Court passed against them Then they Appeal and Sentence is repealed and 15 l. Costs given to them and they sue for that 15 l. in the Ecclesiastical Court S. pleads a Release of one of the Church-wardens And in a Prohibition it seem'd to the three Justices That that Release is a Bar against the other and that if it be disollowed in the Spiritual Court by the Court it was said a Prohibition shall lie 7 Jac. B. R. rot 852. A Consultation in such case was granted for the Church-wardens in such a case are a Corporation for the benefit but not for the prejudice of the Parish 13 H. 7. 9. 11 H. 4. 12. And they shall recover the Costs to the use of the Church and the Release shall be well enough determined there where the Suit was commenced 13. In Heal's Case against the Church-wardens of Hobleton it was agreed by the Court That for a Tax assest for the Reparation of a Church a Rate made perpetuis duratura temporibus it is not good to bind the Inheritance but yet it is good by way of direction how and how much shall be levied as need requires And in Chamber 's Case a Prohibition was awarded to the Court of the Bishop of Oxford for that that Chambers was sued there for a perpetual charge imposed upon his Land for the Reparation of the Church For by the Court an Inherritance cannot be charged with that In another Case one that was sued in the Ecclesiastical Court for Rates to reparation of the Church alledged that they had overvalued his Land Rating them at the value of 100 l. per. annum they being worth but 60 l. 2 He alledged a Custome in the Parish that they ought to be rated not according to the value of their Farms and Houses but only according to the value of their Sheep-walks and on that matter he pray'd a Prohibition As to the first all the Court except Whitlock Resolved that it is not material because the Rates ought
to follow the value of the Land and for that the valuing of the Land properly belongs to them As to the second Noy moved That although the Principal be a thing Spiritual yet it is now mixt with a Custome as in the Case de modo Decimandi the Ecclesiastical Court is ousted of his Jurisdiction Houghton Justice It seems so as to other things but the Church being the House of God is more to be regarded and a custome in prejudice to the Reparations of the Church is void for of common Right the House and all Lands are chargeable to the Reparations And the Court commanded him to make a Suggestion of the Custome omitting the value and then they would consider whether a Prohibition should go or no. In Stephenson's Case it was Resolved that if one hath Lands in one Town and doth inhabit in another he shall be compelled to be contributary to the Reparation of the Parish Church where the Lands are 14. Note by Coke Chief Justice That the keeping of a Church-Book for the Age of those which should be Born and Christned in the Parish began in the Thirtieth year of Henry the Eighth by the instigation of the Lord Cromwell 15. Chappel Capella of the French Chapelleé that is aedicula Of this there seems to be three sorts the one such as adjoyns to the Church as parcel of the same built by Persons of Honour ut ibidem Familiaria Sepulchra sibi constituant Another that which is separate from the Mother-Church in a Parish of a large extent built for the better ease and convenience of such Parishioners whose habitations are remote and far distant from the Parish-Church and thence vulgarly called a Chappel of Ease being served by some inferiour Curate at the charge either of the Rector or of such as for whose convenience it is according to the custome or composition A Chappel of Ease is where there is a Parochial Church in the same Parish wherein the Sacraments are administer'd and not in the Chappel 8 H. 6. 32. which appertains to the Parochial Church and the Parson thereof Ibid. And a Parochial Church cannot be a Chappel 8 H. 6. 37. The Third is that which is called a Free-Chappel which in point of Maintenance and endowment as also in respect of exemption from the Ordinaries Jurisdiction seems to differ from both the former and hath perpetual maintenance towards the upholding thereof by a charitable Endowment thereof without the charge of the Rector or Parish So that a Free-Chappel or Libera Capella is according to the opinion of some no other than a Chappel founded within some Parochial precincts for Divine Service by the bounty of some well disposed person over and above the mother-Mother-Church to which it was at the Parishioners choice or liberty for whose convenience it was erected to repair or not and endowed with Maintenance by the Founder and therefore called Free. Notwithstanding which others are of opinion and that more probable That these only are Free Chappels which are of the Foundation of Kings and by them exempted from the Jurisdiction of the Ordinary but the King may also License a Subject to Found such a Chappel and by his Charter exempt it from the Visitation of the Ordinary in respect of which exemption and from the Jurisdiction of the Diocesan it appears by the Register of Writs to be called Free H. 8 E. 3. B. R. Rot. 97. Episcopus Exon attachiat ad respondendum Domino Regi quare exerceret Jurisdictionem in Capella Regia Sanctae Burianae in Cornub c.. The King himself Visits his Free Chappels and Hospitals and not the Ordinary The Lord Chancellor executes it for the King These Chappels were all of them together with Chantries given to the King Of this kind is the Free Chappel of St. Martin le Grand The Canonists are not agreed touching the derivation of this word some take it à capiendo Laicos others à Capra because they conceive that they resemble those Cottages which were wont to be covered over with Goat-skins Others à cappa Divi Martini Others è Chapellee Gallic 16. In the Parish of Aston in the County of Warwick which hath a Parish Church is a certain Chappel of Ease called Castle-Birmidge Chappel and a certain Precinct called Castle-Birmidge the Inhabitants thereof resort to the said Chappel and there Marry Christen and receive the Sacraments there are also Church-wardens and the Inhabitants have a Perambulation there of it self notwithstanding all which when it came in debate whether the Parishioners of the Chappel the Parish-Church of Aston being in decay might be Taxed towards the Reparation thereof they obtained a Prohibition on a Surmize which not appearing to be true a Consultation was awarded yet in that case it was held That if two Churches Parochial be united the Reparation shall be several as before And that a Chappel of Ease is part of the Parish de communi jure liable to reparations of the Parish Church that such as have a Chappel of Ease may resort to the Parish Church if they so please and that the Parson of the Parish-Church may Officiate at the Chappel of Ease if he will 17. The Emperour Justinian in the fifth Collation of his Novel Constitutions commonly called the Authenticks emitted by him after the Digest and the Code hath Ordained That no man build a Chappel in his House without the leave of the Bishop and before he consecrate the place by Prayer and set up the Cross there and make procession in the place and that before he build it he allot out Lands necessary for the maintenance of the same and those that shall attend on God's Service in the place In which Collation there is also that which seems to bear some conformity with the Acts of Uniformity established in this Realm against Seditious Conventicles For in that Collation it is likewise Ordained by the said Emperour That the sacred Mysteries or Ministeries be not done in private Houses but be celebrated in publick places lest thereby things be done contrary to the Catholick and Apostolick Faith unless they call to the celebrating of the same such Clerks of whose Faith and Conformity there is no doubt made or those who are thereunto deputed by the Bishop But Chappels and places to pray in every man may have in his own House if any thing be done to the contrary the House wherein these things are done shall be confiscate and themselves punished at the discretion of the Prince 18. A. the Father had all his life the chief place in a certain Seat in the Church and H. his Son likewise claimed the same and C. disturb'd him in a violent manner the Archbishop of York in whose Jurisdiction this was granted an Inhibition against C till the matter were determined before him and Excommunicated him for Disobedience C. claimed the place by Prescription and for that Reason prayed a Prohibition
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-Mother-Church and that they have been exempted from all charges and reparations of the mother-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
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-Parish-Churches neither are they there to Judge what shall be said to be a mans parish-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
of Advowson of a Church he may only say that he was seized as of Fee and not in his Demesn as of Fee whether it be an Advowson in Gross or Appendant which Appendancy is held to be for the most part by Prescription and must relate to such things as are in their own nature of a perpetual continuance for which reason it is That Advowsons cannot be said to be Appendant to Rents Services and the like because such things are extinguishable And although an Advowson be not properly said to be a Demesn yet it may be Appendant to a Demesn as of Lands or things Corporeal and Perpetual and therefore as supposed not to a House of habitation meerly quatenus such yet to the Soyl whereon the House is erected whereby the Law which hath the clearest prospect of Casualties at a distance hath provided that the Advowson shall stand though the House fall but an Advowson Disappendant and in Gross which in man hath alone and not by reason of any other thing but severed from the Lands to which it was Appendant such an Advowson is exempt from divers prejudicial Incidents which the other viz. the Appendant cannot well avoid And where a Subject or Common person hath an Advowson Appendant to a Mannor and there be an Usurpation upon him by a Presentation made by a Stranger whose Clerk is in for Six months though this makes the Advowson of such Common person Disappendant to his Mannor yet it is otherwise in case of the King who may grant the Advowson notwithstanding such Usurpation for a man cannot put the King out of possession either by Presentation or Usurpation as hath been Adjudged Nor doth the King's Presentation by Lapse sever the Advowson from the Mannor or cause it to become disappendant as in Gawdy's Case against the Archbishop of Canterbury and Others was likewise Adjudged in which Case it was also said by Habard Chief Justice That neither doth a wrongful Collation of the Bishops make any Disappendancy nor any binding Plenarty against the true Patron but that he may not only bring his Quare Impedit when he please but also Present upon him seven years after Also whereas it was said before That an Advowson cannot be Appendant to things Extinguishable as to Rents Services and the like so it seems at the Common Law an Advowson in Possession cannot be Appendant to a Reversion expectant upon an Estate for life for the Case was The King seized of a Mannor with an Advowson Appendant granted the Mannor to J. S. for life and then granted the Mannor to J. D. after the death of J. S. Habendum una cum Advocatione and then by Parliament the King reciting both the Grants confirmed them by Parliament yet the Advowson passed not Finally whereas also it hath been Adjudged as aforesaid that the King cannot be put out of possession either by Presentation or Usurpation this seems to refer only as to the Kings Advowson and not as to his present Presentation for the Opinion of Sir H. Hobart Chief Justice is That although the King may be dispossessed of his present Presentation he cannot be so of his Advowson and therefore he may still grant it notwithstanding the Usurpation as was Judged in a Writ of Error upon a Judgment given to the contrary between the King and Campion for the Vicarage of Newton Valence 23. A Donative in the Kings Gift may be with Cure of Souls as the Church of the Tower of London is a Donative in the Kings Gift with Cure as in the Case of Fletcher and Mackaller where Information was brought upon the Stat. 31 Eliz. of Simony for procuring him to be promoted to the Church of the Tower for money and per Curiam it well lies 24. The Queen hath the Advowson of the Vicarage of H. and grants the Vicarage to J. S. It was the Opinion of all the Justices that the Advowson passeth not for that the Vicarage is another thing than the Advowson of the Vicarage The Queen seized of a Mannor to which an Advowson was appendant granted the Mannor cum Advocatione Ecclesiae the Church being then void It was Adjudged the Avoidance did not pass but the Queen should Present pro hac vice And in the Queen and Hussie's Case it was Resolved That a double Presentation would not put the Queen out of possession if she hath Right And in Stephens and Clarks Case it was Resolved That the Grant of the next Avoidance to one during the Avoidance is void in Law CHAP. XX. Of Appropriations 1. The great Antiquity of Appropriations a Conjecture of their Original whether Charles Martell was the occasion thereof they were prohibited in England anciently by the Pope whether they can be otherwise than by the King or some Authority derived from him 2. How the End and use of Appropriations is changed at this day from what it was in the Original Institution thereof 3. Appropriators why called Proprietarii The care of R. 2. in making Provision for thé Vicar in case of Appropriations Requisites of Law to make an Appropriation 4. A further discovery of the Original use and ends of Appropriations and under what qualifications 5. Whether Appropriations were anciently grantable to Nunneries 6. Appropriations not now to be questioned as to their Original 7. A Vicarage endowed may be Appropriated but not to a Parson 8. Three considerable Points of Law resolved by the Justices touching Appropriations 9. Whether an Advowson may be Appropriated without a Succession Appropriations usually were to Corporations or Persons Spiritual 10. How a Church Appropriate may be disappropriated 11. In Appropriations the Patron and his Successors are perpetual Parsons 12. Whether an Appropriation of a Parsonage without endowment of the Vicarage be good Also whether an Appropriation may be made without the Kings License 1. IT is a question at this day undecided Whether Princes or Popes were the first Authors of Appropriations the practice whereof by each of them is of great Antiquity but whether in imitation of Charles Martell's Sacrilegious President the first by whom Tithes were ever violated in the Christian World is but a Supposition rather than any Assertion among Historians It was long since Traditionally Recorded in History that about the year 650. when the said Charles Martell Father of Pipin after King of France in defence of his Country against the Hunnes Gothes and Vandals had slain no less than 34500 of those Infidel Sarazens in one Battel he did not restore to such of the Clergy of France their Tithes as from whom under a fair pretence of supporting the charges of the War thereby he had upon a Promise of Restitution thereof so soon as the War should cease obtained the same but instead thereof gratified such of the Nobility as had assisted him in the War by the grant thereof to them and their Heirs for ever But whether this Sacriledge if it be true had
in strictness of Law by the words cum pertinentiis yet it shall be intended in respect of the Ancient and continued possession that there was a lawful Grant of the King to H. B. c. and all shall be presumed to be done which might make the Ancient Appropriation good And the Reason thereof there given is for that if the Appropriation had been drawn in question in the Life-time of any of the Parties to it they might have shewed the truth of the matter But after so many Successions of Ages in which the Church was esteemed to be rightfully Appropriated the Appropriation shall not now be drawn in question For the same reason a Procedendo was refused to be granted in Chancery in the Case of the Lord St. John of Bletso and the Dean and Chapter of Gloucester the Court then giving for Reason because the Defendant and those from whom he claimed time out of mind had had the possession of a Parsonage as Impropriate saving for some short time and because it shall be a dangerous President for Owners of Impropriations to maintain the Appropriations to be Perfect in all points and circumstances requisite to an Absolute Appropriation the Appropriations being made of Ancient time The like Resolution was given by the Court in Hunston and Cockett's Case viz. That whether an Appropriation be good or not cannot now be called into question but shall be intended to be good and to all requisite Circumstances 7. An Appropriation cannot in any case be made by the Patron himself only yet where the King is Patron it may be made by him Sole And although upon every Appropriation there ought to be an Endowment of a Vicar yet a Vicarage it self Endowed may as hath been held by the whole Court be Appropriated but not to the Parson and as in the Book 21 H. 6. is such a Vicarage as may afterwards be dissolved And if a Lease be made of a Parsonage Impropriate by one who hath not any thing therein during the life of the Incumbent it will be void nor can an Appropriation be made to a Church which is Full of an Incumbent but by Special words It hath also been held That a Vicarage Perpetual could not be dissolved after the Statute of 4 H. 4. and that the Pope had not any power to make any Ordinance against that Statute by which he hath not any Right to meddle with Advowsons Benefices c. and that by his Bulls he cannot dispence with the Law though they tend in ordine ad Spiritualia 8. Touching Appropriations there were Three considerable Points in Law Resolved by the Justices in Grendon's Case 1 That none is capable of Appropriation but a Body Corporate or Politick Spiritual which hath a Succession For that the effect of an Appropriation as to the first Institution thereof was to make the Body Politick perpetual Incumbent and to have the Rectory and that he hath the Cure of all the Souls of the Parishioners and therefore he must be a Spiritual person 2 That the King Ordinary and Patron ought to be assenting unto every Appropriation and that the Authority which the Pope had usurped in this Realm was by Parliament An. 25 H. 8 acknowledged to be in the King and the King being Supream Ordinary might of his own Authority and Jurisdiction make an Appropriation without the Assent of the Bishop 3 That an Appropriation may be made by Apt words when the Church is Full as to say That the Parson who is a Spiritual person after that the Church shall be void shall be Parson and may retain the Glebe and the Fruits of the Church to his proper use and that the same shall be a good Appropriation when the Church shall be void by death or otherwise 9. It is brought by way of Report to us That it was the Opinion of the Master of the Rolls in the great Case of Consultation which was argued in the Exchequer Chamber the 18 H. 6. 21. a. That an Advowson could not be Appropriate without a Succession although that the Incumbent purchased the Advowson by License to hold to his Own use Where it was further said That if a Prior were seized of an Advowson to him and his Heirs and he purchase License of Appropriation and that he and his Successors might hold the Advowson to their own use yet the Advowson shall descend to his Heirs But in such case if he would have the Appropriation to be good it were best to alien the Advowson and after to re-purchase it to him and his Successors and then the Appropriation will be good All Appropriations have been usually to Corporations or persons Spiritual and not to Bodies Politick consisting of meer Lay-men or Lay-Corporations And in Alden and Tothil's Case it was in question Whether the King since the Statute of 25 H. 8. might by his Letters Patents Appropriate a Church Parochial which was before Presentative unto a Lay-Corporation all the Members of the Corporation being meer Lay-men which Case was not then Resolved 10. As a Church Parochial might be Appropriated so a Church which is Appropriated to a Spiritual Corporation may become disappropriate if the Corporation be-dissolved Also if the Advowson of a Church were by License granted to a Prior and his Successors and afterwards the same Church were Appropriated to him and his Successors so as thereby they became perpetual Parsons Imparsonees In that Case if the Wife of a Grantor were endowed of the Advowson and Presented a Clerk who was Admitted Instituted and Inducted the Appropriation would be defeated for ever for the whole Estate of the Parson Imparsonee is thereby avoided And so it was Adjudged 2 E. 3. 8. sed Quaere For in the Case of Lancaster and Lucas it was held by the Court That in such Case the Church was Disappropriated but during the life of the Wife and after her death it should remain as Appropriated 11. Sir H. Hobart Chief Justice in the Case of Colt and Glover against the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield says That the proper and operative word that doth Appropriate is to make the Patron and his Successors Perpetual Parsons and in the Case of Wright against Gilbert Gerrard and Richard Hildersham That the Instrument of Appropriation runs in these words That they and their Successors not their Assigns shall be Parsons or by Periphrasis hold the Church in proper use and the words of Appropriating are that they may hold Ecclesiam Rectoriam in proprios usus as in Grindon's Case and says further that Appropriations cannot endure longer than the Bodies whereunto they were first Appropriate because it carries not only the Glebe and Tithes but doth also give the Spiritual Function makes the Parsons of the Church and supplies Institution and Induction 12. A Prior was seized of the Advowson of a Parsonage the Church being void the Bishop gave him License to hold
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
not and at what time and when the Church shall be Judged to become void and when not all these appertain to the Kings Temporal Laws And in case it happen that the King Present not where of Right he may in such case the Ordinary may pro tempore depute a fit person to serve the Cure as in like case he may where there is a default or neglect in other Patrons to Present and do not 7. If the Patrons be Joynt-tenants or Tenants in Common of the Patronage and they vary or differ in their Presentations the Ordinary is not in that Case bound to Admir either of their Clerks nor him that is Presented by the Major part And if the Six months expire ere they agree the Ordinary may Present by the Lapse but within the Six months he may not for if so and the Patrons accord they may bring a Quare Impedit against him as a Disturber and remove his Clerk But in case the Patrons have the Patronage by Descent as Coparceners then is the Ordinary obliged to Admit the Clerk of the Eldest Sister who hath the precedency by Law in the Presentation if she so please after which and at the next Avoidance the next Sister shall Present and so in order by turn one Sister after another till all the Sisters or their Heirs have Presented and then the Eldest Sister shall Present again and this is called a Presenting by Turn which holdeth alwaies between Coparceners of an Advowson unless they agree to Present together or in some other manner by way of Composition which if so then the Agreement ought to hold good Yet here note That if after the death of the Common Ancestor the Church happening to be void the eldest Sister together with another of the Sisters Presents and the other Sisters severally and each in her own Name or joyntly and altogether In this case the Ordinary is not obliged to receive any of their Clerks but may suffer the Church to run into the Lapse for there is no obligation on the Ordinary to admit the Clerk of the Eldest Sister but where she Presents in her own Name only And in such case of variance or difference among the Patrons touching the Presentation the Church is not properly said Litigious obliging the Ordinary at his peril to direct a Writ to enquire de jure Patronatus which Writ lieth only where Two or more Present under pretence of several Titles but in this case all the Patrons present under one and the same Title for which reason the Ordinary may if he please suffer it to pass into the Lapse 8. Suppose a Patron presents to a Church void and before the Admission of the Clerk the Patron dies after his Executors before such Admission Present another Clerk Q. Whether the Archdeacon ought to receive the Clerk of the Testator or of the Executors The Opinion of the whole Court was That the Bishop should have Election therein And in case an Agreement be made by way of Composition between divers claiming one Advowson and Enrolled or by Fine that one shall successively after another Present in such an order certain and after one hath Presented he to whom at the next Avoidance the Second Presentation doth belong is disturbed by any that was party to the said Fine or by some other in his stead In such case it is provided That such so disturbed shall not be put to the Quare Impedit but their resort to the Roll or Fine shall be sufficient where if the Concord or Agreement be found the Sheriff shall be commanded That he give knowledge to the Disturber that he shew by such a time certain as fifteen days or three weeks if he can alledge any thing wherefore the party that is disturbed ought not to Present and if he appear not or appearing alledge nothing sufficient in Bar he shall recover his Presentation with Dammages 9. In the Case of Evans and Ascough it was the Opinion of Doderidge That a Bishop hath no more in a Church by Election than a Parson hath by Presentation And that if a man Present to a Church yet any time before Institution he may revoke it and Present another and if in that case the Bishop will Institute the First a Quare Impedit will lie against him But if the Patron present one and he be Admitted by the Ordinary he cannot in that case vary from his Presentation as was also held by Doderidge in Stoke's Case against Styles where he further said That it was out of all question at the Common Law that before Admission by the Ordinary the Lay-Patron may revoke his Presentation because a Presentation is no other than a Commendation which may be by word only And if the Case be that one hath the Nomination another the Presentation the Presentation and Nomination are all one It was then said by Whitlock That in the Canon Law it is allowed to a Lay-man to vary but not to a Spiritual man but at the Common Law it is all one Doderidge and Jones seemed to give the Reason thereof when they said That it may be intended that a Lay-man cannot at first so well judge or is able to discern of the sufficiency of the party Presented but a Spiritual-man may Quaere If after Admission of the Patrons Presentee he doth afterwards again Present another to the Ordinary and the Ordinary Admit Institute and Induct the last Presentee what Remedy for the first So if a Spiritual Person change his Presentation by the consent of the Ordinary what remedy for the First after Induction of the Second 10. To the same purpose with the premisses is that which is Reported in Stoke's Case against Sykes the Case is this viz. A Lay-Patron having the next Avoidance of a Church after the death of one Stokes Father of the Plaintiff then Incumbent of the said Church after the Fathers death presented Stokes's Son whom the Bishop refused for that by the Canon Law Filius Patri non potest in Ecclesia succedere Whereupon the Patron presented Sykes And now Stokes obtains a Dispensation Non obstante the Canon Notwithstanding the Ordinary doth Institute Sykes and causeth him to be Inducted Whereupon Stokes doth Sue Sykes and the Ordinary in the Delegates and now Banks prays a Prohibition and by all the Justices it was granted And Jones said That he had known it to be Thrice so granted in the like Case viz. in the time of Justice Gawdy as also in the time of Justice Coke in the Common Pleas where both Parsons claimed by one Patron But Doderidge there held That the Canon before-mentioned doth not hold in this Church and so said Doderidge was the Opinion of a Learned Civilian So by the Canon Law a man cannot have that Woman in Marriage whom he had in Avowry before yet that Canon doth not hold in our Church Doderidge said that the Civilians hold That a Lay-Patron cannot revoke
unless he be qualified for Plurality Or if a Dean be made a Bishop yea though a Dean or Parson in England be made a Bishop in Ireland as aforesaid his Benefice becomes void as was Resolved in Evans and Askwith's Case for that the Constitution or Council which makes it void is general and not limited to any place And so it was also Resolved 3 E. 3. Fitz. Trial and so adjudged 21 Jac. C. B. in the Case between Woodley and the Bishop of Exon and Manwaring 12. The case may so happen that albeit a man having a Benefice with Cure of Souls accept another and be Instituted and Inducted into the same yet his First Benefice shall not be void by Cession though the Benefices be incompatible though there be no Dispensation in the case and although himself be not otherwise qualified for Pluralities For it hath been Resolved That if a man having one Benefice accept another and be Instituted and Inducted into the Second and then read not his Articles that yet the First Benefice voids not by Cession because the Second is as not taken Notwithstanding it cannot be denied but that where a man having a Benefice with Cure of Souls above the value of Eight pounds per Ann. doth take another with Cure and is thereto Admitted Instituted and Inducted the First Benefice without Dispensation becomes void as in the Case of the King against George Lord Archbishop of Canterbury In which Case it was held That the Church was absolutely void in facto jure by taking of a Second Benefice and that by the express words of the Statute of 21 H. 8. So that by the Acceptance of a Second Benefice the Church is void facto jure quoad the Patron and all others Sed Q. whether void as to an Usurper for in some cases a Benefice may be void as to some persons and not void as to others As in the Case of Simony whereby as well as by Cession a Church becomes void yet in that case although it be void to all men quorum interest to the King and his Incumbent and all that claim under him and to the Parishioners to the Ordinary and to the like yet according to Sir Hen. Hobart Chief Justice it is not void to an Usurper for a man without Right cannot Present unto it as to a Church void nor the Ordinary so discharge himself if he receive the Clerk of an Usurper for he is none of them quorum interest Pasch 14 Jac. Rot. 1026. Case of Winchcombe against the Bishop of Winchester and Rich. Pulleston Hob. Rep. 13. If the Next Avoidance be granted to Three persons and after the Church become void and then Two of the Three Present the Third Grantee being a Clerk in this case the Presentation is good and the Bishop may not refuse him inasmuch as all Three were Joynt-tenants thereof by the Grant and only Two of them joyn in the Presentment for that the Third person cannot Present himself but if only one of these Three Grantees Present the Third the Bishop hath power to refuse him And if an Incumbent having the Advowson do Devise the Next Avoidance it seems it is good Trin. 13 Jac. B. R. Harris vers Austen Rol. Rep. 14. In Holland's Case it was Resolved That before the Statute of 21 H. 8. c. 13. if he which had a Benefice with Cure accept another with Cure the First was void but this was no Avoidance by the Common Law but by Constitution of the Pope of which the Patron might take Notice if he would and Present without Deprivation But because the Avoidance accrued by the Ecclesiastical Law no Lapse incurred without Notice as upon a Deprivation or Resignation so that the Church was void for the benefit of the Prtron not for his disadvantage But now if the First Benefice be of the value of Eight pounds per annum the Patron at his peril ought to Present for to an Avoidance by Parliament every one is party but if not of Eight pounds it is void by the Ecclesiastical Law of which he needs not take Notice 15. In a Quare Impedit The Defendant said A. was seized of the Advowson of the Church of D. and by Deed 19 Jac. granted to J. S. the Next Avoidance and that J. S. died and made his Executor who Presented the Plantiff to the Church being void Upon Non concessit it was found That A. granted to J. S. durante vita ipsius J. S. primam proximam Advocationem and that he died before the Church became void Whether this was an absolute Grant of the Next Avoidance as is pretended was the Question And Resolved it was not but it is limited to him to Present to the Advowson if it becomes void during his life and not that otherwise it should go to his Executors and therefore it was Adjudged against the Defendant 16. The Incumbent of a Church purchased the Advowson thereof in Fee and devised that his Executor should Present after his decease and devised the Inheritance to another in Fee It was said the devise of the Next Avoidance was void because when his Will should take effect the Church was instantly void But the Court held the devise was good for the Law is so and it shall be good according to the intent of the party expressed in his will The Grant of the Next Avoidance during the Avoidance is void in Law Steephens and Clark's Case More 's Reports 17. In a Quare Impedit the Case was The Corporation of B. being seized of an Advowson granted the Next Avoidance to J. S. and afterward granted primam proximam Advocationem to the Earl of B. who granted it to the Plaintiff The Church became void J. S. Presented his Clerk who was Inducted and then the Church became void again It was Resolved that the Second Grant was void so as the Plaintiff had no Title for when he had granted primam proximam Advocationem to one he had not Authority to grant it after to another but if the First Grant had been lost so as it could not have been pleaded there perhaps the Second Grand had been good 18. In a Quare Impedit the Case was H. being Incumbent of a Church was Created a Bishop in Ireland and the Queen Presented the Defendant It was the Opinion of the Justices That this Creating of the Incumbent a Bishop in Ireland was a good cause of Avoidance and that the Queen should have it by her Prerogative But if the Queen doth not take the benefit of the First Avoidance but suffers a Stranger to Present and the Presentee dies she may not have Prerogative to Present to the Second Avoidance 19. The Next Avoidance of a Church was granted to A. and B. A. releases to B. and after the Church became void It was Adjudged in this Case That B. may Present and upon Disturbance have a Quare Impedit in his own Name
the First were vnder the annual value of Eight pounds or sine cura And what persons are qualified either for the Granting or receiving Pluralities appears by the Stat. of 21 H. 8. c. 13. In which there is not any limitation of Number of Chaplains to be retained by the King Queen and Prince and other the King's Children for which reason they may retain as many Chaplains as they please and each of them qualificable by a Dispensation for Plurality But if either of the King's Chaplains be Sworn of his Majesties most Honourable Privy Council such may purchase a Dispensation to hold Three Benefices with Cure of Souls The Persons specially qualified by Dispensations for Pluralities are either 1 Such as are retained as Chaplains to Persons of Honour Or 2 Such as are qualified thereto in respect of their Birth Or 3 Such as are dignified with some certain Degrees in either of the Universities of this Kingdom In reference to the first of these every Archbishop and Duke may have Six Chaplains Marquess and Earl Five every Viscount and other Bishop Four Lord Chancellor Three Knight of the Garter Three Baron Three Dutchess Marchioness Countess and Baroness being Widows Two Treasurer and Controller of the Kings House Two the Kings Secretary and Dean of his Chappel the Kings Almner and Master of the Rolls Two the Chief Justice of the Kings Bench and Warden of the Cinque Ports One In reference to the Second qualification viz. By Birth the Brothers and Sons of all Temporal Lords and of Knights born in Wedlock may purchase Dispensations to hold Two Parsonages c. with Cure of Souls In reference to the Third all Doctors and Batchelors of Divinity Doctors and Batchelors of Law Presented to any of these Degrees not by grace only but by any of the Universities of this Realm may purchase and hold as aforesaid Vid. Statute 21 H. 8. cap. 13. 4. Although by the Letter of which Act the First Living is not void until Induction into the Second the words being If the party be Instituted and Inducted in possession of the Second Living that then the first shall be void yet to avoid the great inconveniency as Sir Simon Degge observes in his Parsons Counsellor that otherwise would ensue it has been held That the First Living is void upon the bare Institution into the Second and so it should seem the Law was before the making of this Act where the party had no Dispensation The sufficiency of qualification for Plurality relates as well to the Dispensation as to the Person for if the Dispensation after its being had from the Master of the Faculties be not confirmed under the Great Seal of England other qualifications will not suffice Nor are the supernumerary Chaplains of any person of Honour retained by him above the Number allowed by the Statute qualified for Plurality Co. 4. 90. B. versus the Bishop of Gloucester and Saveacre Anders More 561. The death attainder degradation or displacing of a Chaplains Lord or his discharging his Chaplain unqualifies him for a Plurality of incompatible Livings otherwise of the Chaplain of a Dutchess Marchioness Countess or Baroness in case of After-marriage A double Capacity in one and the same person of Honour to qualifie his Chaplains doth but capacitate him to qualifie his Number of Chaplains only according to his best qualification A Person of Honour having retained his full Number of Chaplains and discharging them after their preferment may not during their Lives qualifie others 5. The Question was formerly put Whether the 8 l. yearly value intentioned in the Statute of 21 H. 8. c. 13. shall be understood according to the Taxed value in the Kings Books or according to the very true value of the Benefice Mr. Hughes in his Parsons Law reports a Case in King James's time wherein this Question was debated pro con the Judges equally divided the Case for difficulty and variance of Opinion adjourned and afterwards as he there speaks de auditu by order of the King compounded In that Case Two Presidents it seems were shewed in proof of that Opinion which inclined to have it taken according to the very value of the Benefice notwithstanding when the same point came again several years after into question the Court then seemed to incline against the Opinion which was for the very value of the Benefice But says he the Case was not then resolved or adjudged but remaineth a Question undetermined Quaere the Law Foster and Walmesley Justices held the value should be taken according to the Taxed value as in the Book of First-Fruits but Warburton and Coke Chief Justice Contra. It hath been Resolved in Holland's Case and likewise in Digby's Case Rep. 4. and often before since the Council of Lateran An. Do. 1215. That if a man have a Benefice with Cure whatever the value be and is Admitted and Instituted into another Benefice with Cure of what value soever having no Qualification or Dispensation the First Benefice is ipso facto so void that the Patron may Present another to it if he will But if the Patron will not Present then if under the value no Lapse shall incurr untill Deprivation of the first Benefice and Notice But if of the value of eight pounds or above the Patron at his peril must Present within Six months by the Statute of 21 H. 8. And in that Case of Digby it was adjudged That when a man hath a Benefice with Cure above eight pounds and afterwards taketh another with Cure and is Presented and Instituted and before Induction procures the Letters of Dispensation that this Dispensation comes too late For by the Institution Ecclesia plena consulta existit against all persons except the King for every Rectory consisteth upon Spiritualty and Temporalty And as to the Spiritualty viz. Cura animarum he is compleat Parson by the Institution for when the Bishop upon Examination had admitteth him able then he doth Institute him and saith Instituo te ad tale Beneficium habere curam animarum of such a Parish accipe curam tuam c. Vide 33 H. 6. 13. But touching the Temporalties as the Glebe-Lands c. he hath no Freehold in them until Induction For by the General Council of Lateran Anno Dom. 1215. it appeareth That by the acceptance of two Benefices the first is void Aperto jure for upon this Council are the Books of the Common Law in this Caâ—e founded And it was in this Case Resolved That this was an Acceptance of a Benefice cum Cura within the Statute of 21 H. 8. Institution is an Acceptance by the Common Law A man was Presented to a Church with a Vicarage endowed the Parson accepted of a Presentation to the Vicarage without Dispensation Whether this were a Plurality by the Canon Law and by the Statute of 21 H. 8. was the Question Hobart Chief Justice was of Opinion That
Conviction of Perjury in the Spiritual Court according to the Ecclesiastical Laws which although as aforesaid it be a just Cause of Deprivation must yet be signified by the Ordinary to the Patron so also must that Deprivation which is caused by an Incapacity of the party Instituted and Inducted for want of Holy Orders 3. By the Statute of 21 H. 8. if an Incumbent having a Benefice with Cure of Souls value 8 l. per ann take another with Cure immediately after Induction thereunto the former is void and void without any Declaratory Sentence of Deprivation in the Ecclesiastical Court in case the Second Benefice were taken without a Dispensation and of such Avoidance the Patron is to take notice at his peril And as Avoidance may be by Plurality of Benefices incompatible without Dispensation so also by not Subscribing unto and not reading the 39 Articles as aforesaid which by the Statute of 13 Eliz. c. 12. is a Deprivation ipso facto as if the Incumbent were naturally dead insomuch that upon such Avoidance there need not any Sentence Declaratory of his Deprivation but the very pleading and proof of his not Reading the said Articles is a sufficient Barr to his claim of Tithes without any mentioning at all his being deprived in the Ecclesiastical Court Yet Sir Simon Degge in his Parsons Counsellor putting the Question What shall be intended by the words Deprived ipso facto as whether the Church shall thereby immediately become void by the Fact done or not till Conviction or Sentence Declaratory modestly waives his own Opinion and says it is a Quaere made by Dyer what shall be intended by the words ipso facto Excommunicate for striking with a Weapon in the Church-yard albeit by the Canon Law which condemns no man before he be heard requiritur sententia Declatoria 4. Touching Deprivation by reason of Miscreancy the Cardinal who by the Bishop of Durham was Collated to a Benefice with Cure is it seems the standing President in which case it was Agreed that notwithstanding the Cardinal 's being deprived for his Miscreancy in the Court of Rome yet whether he were Miscreant or not should be tried in England by the Bishop of that Diocess where the Church was 5. Among the many Causes of Deprivation forementioned you do not find that of Marriage in the Priest which was anciently practicable as appears by what the Lord Coke reports touching an Incumbent in the time of King Ed. 6. who being Deprived in Queen Maries daies partly because he was a Married person and partly because of his Religion was restored again in the time of Queen Elizabeth In whose Case it was Adjudged That his Deprivation was good until it was voided by a Sentence of Repeal whereby he became Incumbent again by virtue of his First Presentation without any new Presentation Institution or Induction In those days it was held That the Marriage of a Priest was a sufficient cause to deprive him of his Benefice Mich. 4. Ma. Dy. 133. 6. In the Case where a meer Lay-man is Presented Instituted and Inducted he is notwithstanding his Laity such an Incumbent de facto that he is not Deprivable but by a Sentence in the Ecclesiastical Court but then the Ordinary is in that case to give Notice of such Deprivation to the Patron otherwise in case the Ordinary for that cause refused him when he was Presented by the Patron But where Non-age is the cause of Deprivation as when one under the age of 23 years is Presented Notice is to be given it having been Adjudged That no Lapse shall incurr upon any Deprivation ipso facto without Notice seeing the Statute of 13 Eliz. 12. says nothing of Presentation which remaining in force the Patron ought to have Notice 7. As in the Admission of a Clerk to a Benefice whatever is a Legal impediment will also be a sufficient cause of Deprivation so in reference to both the Law takes care to distinguish between that which is only Malum prohibitum and that which is Malum in se and therefore doth not hold the former of them such as frequenting of Taverns unlawful Gaming or the like to be a sufficient cause of a Clerks Non-admission to a Benefice or of his Deprivation being Admitted Otherwise if you can affect him with that which is Malum in se in which case Notice is to be given the Patron by the Ordinary of the Cause of his Refusal or Deprivation as also it is in case of Deprivation for not Subscribing or not Reading the 39 Articles of Religion according to the foresaid Statute of 13 Eliz. 12. which Notice ought to be certain and particular a general Notice of Incapacity not sufficing in which case an Intimation of such particular Incapacity affixed on the Church-door if the Patron be in partibus longe remotis or may not easily be affected therewith will answer the Law Vid. 18 Eliz. Dyer 346. 22 Eliz. Dyer 369. 16 Eliz. Dyer 327. Co. par 6. 29. Green 's Case 8. It is evident from the Premisses That a Deprivation from an Ecclesiastical Benefice will follow upon a Disgrading or Degradation from the Ecclesiastical Function or Calling for this Degradation is the Incapacitating of a Clerk for discharge of that holy Function for it is the punishment of such a Clerk as being delivered to his Ordinary cannot purge himself of the Offence whereof he was convicted by the Jury And it is a Privation of him from those holy Orders of Clerkship which formerly he had as Priesthood Deaconship c. And by the Canon Law this may be done Two waies either Summarily as by Word only or Solemnly as by devesting the party degraded of those Ornaments and Rites which were the Ensigns of his Order or Degree But in matters Criminal Princes anciently have had such a tender respect for the Clergy and for the credit of the whole profession thereof That if any man among them committed any thing worthy of death or open shame he was not first executed or exposed to Publick disgrace until he had been degraded by the Bishop and his Clergy and so was executed and put to shame not as a Clerk but as a Lay-Malefactor which regard towards Ecclesiasticks in respect of the dignity of the Ministry is observed by a Learned Author to be much more Ancient than any Papistical Immunity and is such a Priviledge as the Church in respect of such as once waited on the Altar hath in all Ages been honoured with 9. Robert Cawdry Clerk Rector of the Church of L. was deprived of his Rectory by the Bishop of London and his Collegues by virtue of the high Commission to them and others directed because he had pronounced and uttered slanderous and contumelious words against and in depravation of the Book of Common Prayer but the Form of the Sentence was That the said Bishop by and with the assent and
leased all his Glebe-Lands with all Profits and Commodities rendring 13 s. 4. d. pro omnibus exactionibus demandis and afterwards Libelled in the Ecclesiastical Court against his Lessee 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 Parishioner all demands in his Lands his Tithes are not thereby extinct and therefore a Consultation was granted And so it was Adjudged 32 Eliz. in Babington's Case That such Lessee should pay Tithes to the Parson for that they are due jure divino and cannot be included in Rent As long as the Vicar occupies his Glebe-Lands in his own hands he shall pay no Tithes but if he Demise it unto another the Lessee shall pay Tithes to the Parson that is Impropriate If the Vicar sow the Land and die and his Executor take away the Corn. and doth not set forth his Tithe and the Parson bring his Action of Debt upon the Statute of 2 Ed. 6. In this case the Court seemed to incline that it would lie The Glebe-Lands and Spiritual Revenues of Clergy-men being held in pura perpetus Eleemosyna h. e. in Frankalmoign are exempted from Arraying and Mustering of Men or Horses for the War as appears in a Stat. of 8. H. 4. nu 12. in the unprinted Rolls of that Parliament An Abbot was Parson Imparsonee of the Church where the Abbey and Tithes were the Abbey was Dissolved the King granted the Monastery to one and the Parsonage and Rectory to another It was the opinion of the Justices That if the Land of the Abbey was the Glebe of the Parsonage before the Impropriation that then the Land was discharged of Tithes for it remains Glebe notwithstanding the Appropriation and the Glebe cannot be gained by Prescription nor was ever chargeable to pay Tithes And if the Parson doth make a Lease of his Glebe the Lessee as was there said contrary to what was before said shall not pay Tithes but the Demesns of the Abbey not parcel of the Glebe should be chargeable to pay Tithes if they were not discharged in right of a Composition or perpetual Unity Grass pays a Predial Tithe but if a man cut Grass and before it be made into Hay being only put into Swathes he carry it thence and give it to his Plowing Cattel for their necessary sustenance not having otherwise Food sufficient for them in this case no Tithes shall be paid for the same and Prohibition was granted Mich. 9. Car. B. R. Crawley Wells per Curiam The Case was where J. Libelled in the Ecclesiastical Court for the Tithes of the Profits which came of the Grass and herbage of Pasture-Land and upon a Prohibition granted P. suggests That he did feed on that Grass and Pasture with his own Plough-Cattel and with the Plough-Cattle of other man in the same Village Noy Consultation shall be granted for though a mrn shall not pay Tithes for the Cattel of his Cart yet he shall pay Tithes for the Land whereon they do feed Doderidge Justice Where I do agist Cattel and take the Cattel of other men to eat up my Grass and Pasture there I shall pay Tithes for the Grass otherwise it is where the Grass is only such as I do depasture with my own working Cattel Crook cited Sherington and Fleetwood's Case where a man Agists other mens Cattel on his Meadowgrouâ—d whereof he paid Tithe-Hay afore time and it was Resolved in this Case That he shall not pay Tithes for that Meadow-ground now fed with other mens Cattel after Harvest and no more than if he had depastured the Land with his own Cattel Gravel is not Tithable Mich. 19. Eliz. B. R. Pasch 34. Eliz. C. B. Liff and Watt ' s Case Grain is computed among the Predial Tithes which is to be set out according to the Statutes and the usage of the place Brownl 1. 14. which holds true of all sorts of Grain in all grounds within the Parish The Law is the same touching Hay in Meadows Grounds lett to Strangers out of the Parish the Tenth-peny of the Rent is commonly payable to the Parson if no Custome against it Or Ground within the Parish lett to a Stranger without the Parish is Tithable by the Ower of the Cattel unless the Custome there be osherwise Or if the Ground be fed with Cattel that bring no profit to the Parson the Owner thereof must pay Tithes for them Or Ground fed with the Cattel of a Stranger within the Parish which brings no profit to the Parson or Vicar he is to pay Tithes for it the Case therefore seems the same if both the Ground and the Cattel be his own that is the Stranger in case he work them in another Parish But the Studs of Ground or the Meers thereof at the Ends of Land and adjoyning to the Arable-ground are not Tithable where the Land it self pays Tithe unless where being mowed for Hay it hath used to pay Tithes H HAy pays a Predial Tithe and is to be Tithes in Swathes Windrows or Cocks as the Custome of the place is Or if the Custome be to measure out the Tenth part as the Grass grows on the Land for Hay the Custome is good and the Tithe of Hay may be set forth in Grass-Cocks where the Custome doth not oblige to make it into Hay-Cocks And if Hay be put into Ricks on the ground and after sold the Buyer cannot be sued for the Tithe the Seller may in case the Tithe thereof were not paid before Hill 16. Jac. by three Justices in Ashfield's Case And where two Crops of Hay are had from the same ground in the same year Tithe shall be paid as well of the latter as of the former Also Tithe shall be paid of the Hay made of Grass growing in Orchards Co. 2. Instit 652. But no Tithe Hay shall be paid for the Grass growing upon Headlands which are only large enough for the turning of the Plough but not for Grass cut in Meadows to feed the Beasts of the Plough and not made into Hay Trin. 1. Car. B. R. Wells vers Crawly Yet on some Headlands Tithe may be payable of Hay for suppose that in an Arable Field there be much Grass on the Headlands thereof and there be a Prescription to pay the Tenth Shock of Corn there for all the Hay on the Headlands and Rakings of the Corn and for Tying of Horses on the Headlands such Prescription was held good to discharge the Tithe of the Hay upon such Headlands And although a Second Crop of Hay from the same ground the same year is Tithable as aforesaid yet regularly the Hay of the Aftermath pays no Tithe except there be a Special Custome for it the Rule being That Tithes shall be paid Ex annuatis renovantibus simul semel And where the
Custome is not otherwise the Parishioner ought to make the Grass into Hay for the Parsons Tithe Yet when the Tithes of Grass are severed from the Nine parts the Parson de jure may make it into Hay upon the Land where it grew and that de jure as well as the Parishioner himself and so Adjudged in the Parson of Columbton's Case in Devon and the Prohibition denied accordingly where the Parson had alledged a Custome of doing so but the Court held that to be needless Hill 14. Jac. B. R. Newbery and Reynold's Case per Curiam And in this case it was held That the Parson may go over the Parishioners ground in the Path-way to make the said Grass into Hay for that is incident to the Tithes A man is not bound to make into Hay the Tithes of the Grass which he cuts but he may set forth the Tithes thereof when it is in Grass-Cocks for he may then sever the Tithes of Grass from the Nine parts Pasch 17 Jac. B. Hide Ellis Hob. Case 328. Contr. Hill 14 Jac. B. R. Barham Goose P. 15. Jac. B. R. per Cur. and Prohibition denied Tr. 15 Jac. B. R. Poppinger Johnson per Cur. and Prohibition denied Pasch 13 Jac. B. R. per Cur. and Prohibition denied P. 2. Jac. B. R. Hob. 328. Hall Simonds Adjudged Likewise a man is not bound to sever the Tithe of Grass before it be put into Grass-Cocks and hath set forth the Tenth part for he may put it into Grass-Cocks out of the Swath and then set forth the Tenth part Ibid. Suit was for Tithe-Hay in the Ecclesiastical Court by the Parson it was Surmized That they had time out of mind paid to the Vicar 4 d. for the Tithe-Hay The Court awarded a Consultation for that the Modus Decimandi doth not come in question but this he may plead in the Ecclesiastical Court And in Gomersall and Bishops Case for Tithe-Hay the Court held That if there be variance between the Surmize and the Declaration all is ill In another Case in a Prohibition it was Surmized That time out of mind the Owners of the Land had found Straw for the Body of the Church in discharge of all Tithes of Hay It was the Opinion of the Court That it was no good Surmize for that the Parson had no benefit of it and a Consultation was awarded Heath Furse and Broom Tithe shall be paid thereof unless the party set forth a Prescription or Special Custome That time out of mind there hath been paid Milk Calves c. for the Cattel that have been kept upon the same Lands in which case they shall not pay Tithes Hemp pays a Predial Tithe Co. Magn. Char. 649. Herbage of ground whereon Corn was sowed the same year and whereof Tithe hath been paid the same year is not Tithable If Herbage he sold it is at the Parsons Election whether he will Sue the Owner of the Cattel that feed thereon or of the Ground for the Tithe thereof if Custome be not against it And as for Herbage growing at Lands-ends adjoyning to the Arable pays no Tithe where Tithe was paid for Arable Where an innkeeper hath paid Tithe-Hay of certain Lands and the rest of the year after puts into the same the Horses of his Guests no Tithes shall be paid for the Herbage of such Horses for it is but the After-pasture of the same Land whereof he had paid Tithes before Trin. 16 Jac. B. R. Richardson Cable per Curiam Prohibition granted Honey is Tithed by the Tenth measure thereof A Prohibition was prayed for Suing for divers kinds of Tithes inter alia for Honey upon a Surmize that it was not payable that Bees are Volatilia It was thereupon demurred but the Opinion of the Court was That Tithes are to be paid for Honey for so is the Book Fitz. N. B. and therewith agreeth Lindwood wherefore the Court awarded that there should be a Consultation Hops pays a Predial Tithe and regularly are accounted inter minutas Decimas yet in some Cases they may be Great Tithes in places where they are much set or planted Mich. 8. Jac. B. A man may set forth the Tenth part of his Hops for Tithes before they be dried Hill 14 Jac. B. R. in Barham and Goos's Case put by Serjeant Hitcham and agreed by Mountacute Hop-poles or Wood cut and employed for them are not Tithable where Tithe Hops are paid And so it hath been Resolved That if Wood be cut and employed for Hop-poles where the Parson or Vicar hath Tithe-Hops they shall not have Tithes of the Hop-poles So if a man hath a great Family and much Wood be felled and spent in House-keeping Tithes shall not be paid of such Wood. Mich. 15 Jac. C. B. by Hobart Chief Justice White Bickerstaff's Case Houses of habitation or Dwelling-houses are not properly Tithable no Tithe payable for the same nor out of the Rent reserved for them being Lett yet by a Custome Tithes may be paid for Rent reserved upon Domise of Houses of habitation although it be otherwise do jure for it might commence on good Consideration Co. 11. Dr. Grant 16. vid. Mich. 12 Jac. B. Hobart 16. Leyfield's Case Prohibition granted Otherwise of New Houses whereof there can be no Custome Ibid. But regularly Houses are not at all Tithable nor were Tithes anciently paid for Houses in London the Profits of the Churches whereof consist only in Oblations Obventions and Offerings Co. ibid. But by a Decree made An. 1535. and confirmed by Act of Parliament Stat. 37 H. 8. cap. 12. there is 2 s. 9 d. made payable to the Parson for every Pound of House-Rent for the Tithes of the Houses in London Hob. 11. But if a Modus Decimandi be alledged to pay 12 d. in every Pound of Rent for every House in such a Parish in London it is a good Modus Decimandi The aforesaid 2 s. 9 d. is to be raised and made up according to the usage and Custome of the City Stat. 27 H. 8. 20. 32 H. 8. 7. And no Tithes are payable for Houses in any City save London where a Prescription to be discharged of Tithes of a House by paying 12 d. of every Pound Rent in lieu thereof is as aforesaid a good Prescription Co. 11. 16. But Tithes regularly are not payable for Houses of Habitation nor of any Rent reserved upon any Demiss of them for Tithes are to be paid of things which grow and renew every year by the Act of God And for the Houses in London Tithes anciently were not paid as aforesaid yet the Parson of St. Clements without Temple-Bar Libelled against a Parishioner for Tithes of certain Stables 〈…〉 set forth in his Libel That of 〈…〉 â—â—scription time out of mind the 〈…〉 had used to have a Modus Decimandi after the Rate 〈…〉 Tenth-part of the yearly Rent or value of the same 〈◊〉 was the Opinion of
Parson of one Parish having part of his Glebe in another may Prescribe in non Decimando for the same So that a Prescription even de non Decimando as for Ecclesiastical persons their Farmers and Tenants may be good In Nash and Molin's Case it was agreed by the Court That a Spiritual man may Prescribe in Non Decimando Cro. par 1. And as for any other person a Prescription de modo Decimandi that is to pay Money or other things in lieu of Tithes in kind is good and if he can prove it Time out of mind this will discharge him Thus a Prescription to pay 4 d. or any other Sum for all his Tithe whatever or for all his Tithe-Hay or for all his Tithe-Corn in such a Farm or in such a Close or for all his Fruit in such an Orchard is good But a Prescription of paying no Tithe-Corn because he pays Tithe-Hay or of paying no Tithe of his Cattel because he pays Tithe-Corn is no good Prescription Or of not paying of Tithes in one place because he pays in another or of not paying Tithe-Lamb because he pays Tithe-Wool vel è contra or of not paying Tithe for other Cattel because he pays 12 d. for a Cow these and the like are no good Prescriptions Yet a Prescription to pay a less part than a Tenth may be good and binding Also a Prescription to pay a peny called Hearth-peny in satisfaction of Tithe for all Combustible Wood may be good Likewise a Prescription by the Lord of a Mannor to pay six pound in satisfaction of all the Tithe-Corn within the Mannor and to have the Tenth Sheaf or Cock in recompence of his payment is good But if the Prescription be to be discharged of Tithe-Hay of such a ground or Tithe-Corn of such a ground and the Owner change the nature of the Ground as Pasture into Tillage or Tillage into Pasture the Prescription is gone Yet a Prescription is not destroyed by an Alteration of payment as if instead of the money to be paid another sum or Tithes in kind have been paid for 20 years past But a Prescription to have Tithes of Houses according to the Rent is not good for no Tithes are to be paid for Houses in any City save in London only Regularly Prescription referrs to one in private as Custome does to many in publick and where a Prescription de modo Decimandi is denied there a Prohibition will lie to try it at the Common Law otherwise if the Prescription or Custome be agreed If a Prescription by a Parishioner be to pay the Tenth part of Corn as a Modus Decimandi for the Hay also that grows on the Headlands it is not good but such Prescription for the Corn and After-Rakings is good with an averment That they are sparsae minus voluntarie If there be a Prescription of a Modus Decimandi for an Orchard or Garden and it afterwards ceases to be such the Modus shall cease also and Tithe shall be paid in kind but if it afterwards be restored to a Garden or Orchard by being replenished with Herbs or Fruit-Trees it shall pay the Modus as formerly If the Modus be to pay two shillings and the Shoulder of three Deer for a Park the Modus remains though the Park be disparked it is otherwise in case the Modus be only to pay Venison Or if the Prescription be to pay a certain Sum of money for all the Tithes of a Park the Modus shall continue though the Park be afterwards disparked A Prescription of a Modus Decimandi generally for a Park is not good if it be Disparked but it shall be particularly for all Acres contained in the Park Prescription being a Temporal thing is Triable only in the Temporal Courts and therefore in the Case of Two Parsons of Two several Parishes where one of them claimed Tithe within the Parish of the other and said That all his Predecessors Parsons of such a Church viz. of D. had used to have the Tithe of such Lands within the Parish of S. and pleaded the same in the Spiritual Court The Court was of Opinion That in this Case a Prohibition did lie for he claims only a portion of Tithes and that by Prescription and not meerly as Parson or by reason of the Parsonage but by a Collateral cause scil Prescription which is a Temporal cause and thing And in another Case it hath been Adjudged That if a Prescription be laid to pay a Modus Decimandi to 100 Acres or to several things if there be a failure of one Acre or of one thing it is a failure of the whole Prescription But where it hath been Prescribed to pay in one part of the Land the Third part of the Tenth and in another part the Moity of the Tenth for all manner of Tithes it hath been held a good Prescription These Prescriptions de modo Decimandi are equally incident as well to Lay-persons as to persons Spiritual or Ecclesiastical but as to Prescriptions de non Decimando none but Spiritual persons are capable of being discharged of Tithes in that kind as was Resolved in the Bishop of Winchester's Case Yet a whole Countrey or County may Prescribe de non Decimando though this or that particular meer Lay-man cannot nor indeed can the other unless there be sufficient Maintenance for the Clergy besides The Prescriptions de modo Decimandi are confirm'd by Act of Parliament and if any Lay-man will Prescribe de non Decimando to be absolutely discharged from the payment of Tithes without paying any thing else in lieu thereof he must Found it in some Religious or Ecclesiastical person and derive his Title to it by Act of Parliament and it is not sufficient to say That they who Prescribe de non Decimando are Churchwardens who have Land belonging to their Church for they are neither Religious nor Spiritual persons But they who are such indeed may so Prescribe not only for themselves but also for their Tenants and Farmers as was formerly said So also may the Kings Patentees of those Abbey-Lands that came to the Crown by the Statute of 31 H. 8. Prescribe de non Decimando by force of the said Statute if so be it may be proved That they have beyond the Memory of man so enjoyed the Lands discharged from the payment of Tithes But for a Parishioner to Prescribe to Non-payment of Tithes because he hath Time out of mind repaired the Church is no good Prescription otherwise in case he had repaired the Chancel and in consideration thereof had been quit of Tithes the Reason is because the Parson not being obliged to repair the Church hath no recompence And in Sherwood and Winchcombs Case it was Resolved That a man cannot Prescribe to have Tithes as parcel of a Mannor for that they are Spiritual but a
may consult the Authors in the Margent The Parson of Henley brought an Action of Debt for 600 l. upon the Statute of E. 6. for not setting forth Tithes of Wood and shews that the Defendant had cut down 200 Loads of Wood to the value of 200 l. and saith that the Tenth part of that did amount to 200 l and so he brought his Action for 600 l. upon the Statute And the Plaintiff was Non-suit for one fault in his Declaration for whereas he declares the price of the Wood to be 200 l. it was mistaken for it should have been 2000 l. for he demanded more for the Tenth part than the Principal is by his own shewing If a man buy Wood Tithable and burn it in his own House he shall not pay Tithes thereof as hath been Resolved And no Tithes shall be paid for Wood cut and employed for the enclosures in the Husbandry Also if a man cut Wood and burn it to make Brick for repairing of his Dwelling-house for himself and his Family within the Parish no Tithes shall be paid for that Wood in regard the Parson hath benefit by the labour of the Family otherwise it is in case the Bricks were only to enlarge his house within the Parish and more than needful for his Family as for his pleasure or delight If a man sell Wood to me and I burn it in my house the Vendor shall stand charged for the Tithes thereof and not the Vendee for no Tithes are due for Wood burnt in the Parishioners house as hath been Resolved Pasch 14 Jac. in B. Parson Ellis Drakes Case and Prohibition granted accordingly Although it was said That by the Civil or rather Canon Law the Parson hath his Election to Sue either of them which is contrary to the Common Law In the Lord Clanrickard's Case against Dame Denton the Plaintiff surmized to the Court That all the Vill. of Kent which is a Precinct containig above forty Parishes time out of mind c. have been discharged of the payment of Tithes of Wood under the age of 20 years and the Defendant had sued him in the Ecclesiastical Court and hereupon had a Prohibition And the Defendant Traversed the Custome which a Jury was taken at the Bar to try and for inducement of the Custome Lindwood was produced in Cap. de Decimis where it is said That before that time Tithes were not paid for Wood which is contrary to the Old and New Testament and that Assertion is made by Stratford Archbishop of Canterbury for that this was a Provincial Constitution that at that time viz. 17. E. 3. Tithes of Sylva caedua shall be paid By which Constitution the Comminalty finding themselves grieved exhibited a Bill in Parliament the same year 17 E. 3. reciting the Ancient Usage of not paying such Tithes and the last Constitution to the contrary and prayed a Prohibition to the contrary To which Bill answer was made in this manner viz. Be it done in this case as it hath been done before this time And the next year another Petition was made in Parl. for the same cause to which it was answered also That where Tithes of Wood have not been used to be paid by Custome that a Prohibition shall be granted And these Acts of Parliament the Plaintiffs Counsel produced out of the Parliament-Rolls Crook Justice gave the Rule viz. Quod de grossis aâ—boribus Decimae non dabuntur sed de Sylva Caedua Decimae dabuntur Vid. Dr. Stu. 164. a. 169. b. Anscombe said The Doctor and Student mistook the maker of that Constitution of Stratford Archbishop In a Prohibition for Tithes of Wood it was suggested That in the Parish there is a Custome that all the Parsons of the said Church time out of mind Habuerunt gavisi fuerunt such Lands parcel of the Manner of F. in recompence of all Tithe Wood within the Parish It was the Opinion of the Justices that it was a good Prescription for it may be that at the beginning all the Land was parcel of the Mannor and then the allowance of the Profits of this Land was alotted in discharge of the Tithes of all the Woods within the Parish In Prohibition to stay a Suit in the Ecclesiastical Court for Tithes Wood it was shewed that the Custome of the Parish is That the Owners of any House and Land in the Parish who pay Tithe to the Parson ought not to pay Tithe for Wood spent for Fuel in their Houses It being found for the Defendant the Issue being upon the Custome It was said That notwithstanding there were any such Custome yet Tithe ought not to be paid for Wood spent for Fuel nor for Fencing-stuff but per Legem terrae he ought to be discharged thereof Resolved It is not de jure per Legem terrae that any one is discharged of them for it is usual in Parishioners to alledge a Custome but not to alledge that per Legem terrae he is discharged And in this case the Plaintiff in the Prohibition having alledged a Custome and it being found against him a Cousultation was awarded A Composition was betwixt an Abbot and a Parson that in recompence of the Tithes of all the Woods within the Mannor whereof the Abbot Owner That he should have to him and his Successor 20 Loads of Wood every year in 20 Acres of the said Mannor to burn and spend in his House The Parsonage was Appropriate to the Abbey and after the Abbey was dissolved the King granted the Parsonage to one and the 20 Acres to another It was Resolved That by the Unity the Estovers were not extinct for it they be Tithes they are not extinct by this Unity of possession for that Tithes run with the Lands and Tithes de jure Divino Canonica Institutione do appertain to the Clergy Wool of Sheep is Tithable proportionably to the time they are in the Parish as thus viz. The Parson shall have Eight pound of Wool in Eighty of Forty Sheep in the Parish a whole year Four pound of Wool in Forty if they were there but half the year Two pound of Wool in Twenty if they were there but Three months and but the Tithe or Tenth of the Twelfth part of the Wool if the lay and fed but One month in the Parish The Wool of Sheep shorn and dying before Easter next following such shearing is not Tithable unless the Parson or Vicar can alledge a special Prescription for it Therefore Q. where by Prescription such Tithe is claimed It is said also That a Custome to pay a Halfpeny for the Wool de ovibus venditis after shearing and before Michaelmass is good and that the Sheep discharged shall be Weathers as well as Ewes Also Wool-locks and Flocks of Wool after the Wool made are likewise Tithable if there be more than ordinary left otherwise not And if a Prescription be alledged to be discharged of Locks of Wool it
and enjoyn him penance according to Ecclesiastical Law but upon such conviction the party shall not he burnt Note says the Lord Coke in the same place that the makers of the Act of 1 Eliz. were in doubt what shall be deemed Heresie or Schism c. and therefore the Statute of 10 Eliz. provides that nothing shall be deemed Heresie but what had been so determined by one of the four General Councils the word of God or Parliament vid. Fox in Ed. 6. and Britton 5 Ed. 1. lib. 1. cap. 17. and with this agrees the Statute 2 H. 5. cap. 7. 23 H. 7. 9. 25 H. 8. c. 14. The proceedings in the commencement and end was altered by the Statute of 25 H. 8. Then came the Statute 1 Ed. 6. cap. 12. and that repealed 5 R. 2. 2 H. 5. and 26 H. 8. and the 2 H. 4. and by general words all Statutes concerning matter of Religion then the 1 2. P. M. cap. 6. Revived the 2. H. 4. by which the 25. H. 8. lost it's force the Act 1 and 2 P and M. cap. 8. expresly repealed 21 H. 8. 23. H. 8. 24. H. 8. 27. H. 8. but the 25. H. 8. cap. 14. was not repealed being repealed before by the 1. Ed. 6. yet in the end of that long Act there is a general clause sufficient of it self to repeal the Act 25. H. cap. 14. without more Then the 1. Eliz. cap. 1. repeals the 1 and 2 P. and M. except some Branches and in the same Act it is enacted that all other Statutes repealed by the said Act of Repeal 1 and 2 P. and M. and not in this Act specially revived shall remain repealed But the 25. H. 8. cap. 14. was not particularly revived and therefore remains repealed And after the said Statute 1. Eliz. repeals the Act 1 and 2 P. and M. of reviving of three Acts for punishment of Heresies so that now at Common Law according to the Lord Coke none can be burnt for Heresie but by Conviction at a Convocation After this viz. Hill 9. Jac. the Atturney and Sollicitor consulted with him whether at this day upon Conviction of an Heretick before the Ordinary the Writ de Haeretico Comburendo lieth and it seemed to him to be clear that it did not for the Reason and Authorities that he had reported Trin. 9. Jac. before But after they consulting also with Fleming Chief Justice Tanfield Chief Baron and Williams and Crook Justices And they upon the report of Dr. Cosins and some Presidents in Queen Elizabeths time certified the King that the said Writ lieth 8. Since the Devil in his Serpentine Policy first negotiated the Fall of Man there have ever been such as have gone forth like the lying Spirit in Ahabs false Prophets whereby many as he was are deceived to their own Ruine these are the Divels Emissaries Active in sowing Tares among the Wheat whom we commonly call Hereticks a Black Catalogue whereof in an Alphabetical Method here follows Acatiani and Semi-Arriani they held that the Son was a Creature made by the Father and that Christ was like to the Father in Will but not in Substance This Heresie began by Acatius not the Eutychian Bishop and Successor to Eusebius in Cesaria and was condemned in the Council of Seleucia Acephali so called because they had neither Bishop nor Priest for their Head and were Branches of the Eutychian Heresie They rejected the Council of chalcedon and denied the two Natures of Christ They despised all Congregations and the Sacraments Adamiani so called from their going naked in their Assemblies in imitation of Adam in his Innocency to which Estate they said Christ had restored Mankind They condemned Marriage and had Women in common with whom they lay promiscuously after the Light put out They held that we ought not to pray to God because he knows our wants without Prayer And called their Assemblies that Paradice which God had promised to the Blessed They had their Conventicles in subterrancan places called Hypacausta because that under the place of their Meetings a Furance of Fire was kindled to warm the same where they unclothed themselves when they entered into it and stood naked both Men and Women in imitation of Adam and Eve before the Fall This Heresie was first broach'd by one Prodicus a Gnostick There was also the Heresie of Adamites promiscuous in their Lusts begun or rather revived by a Picard of Gallo-Belgia in the year 1341. AEtius a Syrian of Antioch and Priest of that Church successor to Arius to whose Errors he added and was degraded and went into Cicilia where he published them and was banished by the Emperour and recalled by Julian in hatred to the Christians He held besides Arrianism that God was comprehensible and that Christ was unlike the Father in all things and spake uncouth things of the Trinity and was justly called an Atheist He was condemned in the Seleucian Council in the year 359. and confuted by Epiphanius Agnoetae they held that the Divine Nature of Christ was ignorant of some things as of the day of Judgement and denied perfection of knowledge to the Son of God in his Divine Nature Almaricani from Almaricus of Carnotum in France who uttered Blasphemous opinions concerning God that he was the Essence of all Creatures and the Soul of Heaven and that all Creatures should be converted into the Substance of God again These Hereticks approved of all Uncleaness under the Veil of Chastity Alogi they rejected the Gospel and the Revelation of St. John saying that they were written by Cerinthus and denied Christ to be the Word as also his Divinity Angelici These Hereticks were Angel-Worshippers Epiphanius who speaks of them better knew their Name than the original of their Sect. Anomaei a Branch of the Stock of the Arians the principal Authors were Acatius Eunomius and AEtius This was in the fourth Century Sozom. l. 4. c. 22. Anthropomorphitae these Hereticks were the Disciples of the Andeani an 370. and revived their Heresie so called of Audaeus a Syrian who lived in the end of Arius his time They Blasphemously held that God had a body like unto Man That Darkness Fire and Water were Eternal They refused the congregation of the Orthodox Church admitted greivous Sinners to the Communion without Repentance Antidicomarianitae these supposed that after the Nativity of our Lord the Virgin Mary accompanied with her Husband Joseph and did bear Children to him August de haeres of which opinion was Helvidius It is said that the opinion of the Fathers of the Church was that as no man did lie in the Sepulchre wherein Christ was buried before him So in the Womb wherein he was conceived no man was conceived after him and that the Fathers by the words in the Apostolick Symbol understood that he was born of Mary a perpetual Virgin And that by the Brethren of our Lord in the
two Wills That the Son of God in Christ was but an Assistant to the Son of the Virgin Mary whom he would not have to be called the Mother of God but only the Mother of Christ Euag. l. 1. c. 7. He held that the Humanity in Christ was made equal with the Deity or Divine Nature He was condemned in the general Council of Ephesus and dyed in Banishment his Blasphemous Tongue being first eaten with Worms which rotted in his mouth Nicholatiae from Nicholas a Deacon of Antioch chosen by the Apostles to look to the Poor who being suspected to be jealous of his fair Wife did to clear himself proffer her to any of the Brethren that would Marry her Whereupon they took occasion to live promiscuously making their Wives Common and held that it was lawful to eat things offered to Idols That Darkness and Light begat the World of which were born Angels and Devils and of them Men. This Heresie continued not long in this Name but was polished and revived by the Gnosticks and Vaentinians Clem. Alex. Strom. 3. Act. 6. Euseb Noetius of Smyrna Disciple to Montanus he called himself Moses and held but one person in the Trinity He being convented abjur'd his Heresie but afterwards being ambitious of a Name relapsed and dispersed it and when he dyed was cast out unburied as not worthy thereof Novatus ordained a Priest of Rome by Cornelius he was the Founder of the foresaid Hereticks the Cathari He held that such as had fallen in time of persecution were not to be restored to the Fellowship of the Church albeit they repented thereof Ophitae of 〈◊〉 a Serpent whom they worshipped affirming most Blasphemously that Christ was the Serpent which deceived Eve they denied Christ's Humanity and the Resurrection They held also a Blasphemous opinion concerning the Sacrament This Sect was a Branch of the Valentinians and continued till after the time of Justinian the first Origeniani and Turpes of one Origen a Gnostick who drew his Heresie from Epiphanes Son to the Heretick Carpocras They prohibited Marriage but committed fornication and all Filthiness and rejected some Books of the Old and New Testament which made against them Some say they were soul and filthy Beasts not abhorring Whoredom but Procreation of Children to the end they might seem chast not unlike unto Onan whom the Lord slew They were also called Origenistae because they defended the Books of Origen who were Theodorus Ascidas Bishop of Caesaria-Cappadocia and the Monks of Nova Lawra There were of these Hereticks also in the sixth Century Palmerius the Chronologer he was burnt for his Heretical Opinions concerning Angels Papias Bishop of Hierapolis he was St. John's Disciple yet afterwards became the Author of the Sect of the Chiliasts or Millenaries whose Heresie was a Branch of that of Cerinthus in that point that Christ should raise the Godly first and live a thousand years with them on earth Patalorynchitae a Foolish People who counted it Religion to stop their breath with their fingers and not to utter any intelligible speech Patareni and Gazareni these Hereticks did hold that married men could not be saved Paterniani or Patriciniani and Venustiani they were called by the first Name of Paternus their Founder and by the last of their lascivious behaviour They held that the lower Parts of Man were not made by God but by the Devil others say that they affirmed that the whole Body of Man was formed by the Devil and â—â—t by God Paulus Samosatenus so called of Samâ—sata the Metropolis of Comagena where he was Born He held that the word was not in Christ otherwise than in the Prophets That Christ was not the word and denied his Divinity He Baptized not in Christ's Name Pelagius Brito whose Followers were Julianus and Coelestius in the days of Arcadius or Honorius this Pelagius was a Roman Monk born in Armorica or Little Britain who with his Disciple Coelestius spread his Heresies over almost all Countreys viz. That Adam had died though he had not sinned That his Sin did only hurt himself and not others but in his Example That Lust and Concupiscence which is naturally in us is Good and nothing in it whereof we need be ashamed That Infants neither have nor draw original Sin from their Parents That the Infants of the Faithful though not Baptized shall be saved but shall remain without the Kingdom of God That men have free Will sufficient to do Good without the Grace of God That Men by nature were able to fulfil the whole Law of God Howbeit more easily and better if they were supported by the Grace of God They denied original Sin and said that the posterity of Adam were Sinners by imitation of Adam's Sin but had not received Sin by carnal Propagation That Children had no need to be baptized for Remission of Sins and that the godly Fathers in Scripture when they confessed their Sins they did it rather for example of Humility than for necessity or guilt of Sin These Heresies have in all ages been confuted by many Learned and Eminent Divines and were condemned by many Councils specially in the Council of Carthage Pepusiani they were of Pepuza a Town of Phrygia between Galatia and Cappadocia they held beside other Heresies of Montanus that Pepuza was the Heavenly Hierusalem mentioned by St. Paul Heb. 12. and in the Revelation c. 2. 1. Petrus Abelardus a French man he held vile things concerning the Blessed Trinity that the Holy Spirit was the Soul of the World and that he was not of the Substance of the Father This was in the twelfth Century Photinus Bishop of Syrmium in Illyria a Disciple to Marcellus he held that Christ's Kingdom was not everlasting began at his birth and should end at the day of Judgment He was condemned in the Council of Sardis Socrat. Eccles Hist lib. 2. cap. 9. Praxeas he was Author of the Monarchici and Patrispassiani he held that God the Father only suffered Priscilianistae from Priscilianus a man of Noble birth in Spain he confounded the Persons in the Trinity Held fond opinions concerning the Creation That Mans Soul was of the same Essence with God That Man's life was ruled by the Planets That Perjury and Lying were lawful to hide a Mans Religion He forbad eating of Flesh and condemned Marriage but allowed Fornication and renewed the Heresie of the Gnosticks this was in the days of the Emperour Gratianus and Valentinian he was executed at Trevers as a Sorcerer Hist Magd. Cent. 4. c. 11. Proclinianitae of one Proclus who besides other Heresies of the Seleuciani held that Christ was not come in the Flesh Quartodecimani they held that Easter was to be observed on the fourteenth Moon and upon what day soever that Moon happened though Sunday they fasted They refused to admit and receive those who had lapsed after Baptism Sabellius an African
the Semi-Arrians prevail and determine That the Form of Faith composed at the Dedication at Antioch should be retained and subscribed unto but they ejected the dissenting Acatians or Arrians from their places At Constantinople where the Acatians remained after the Council at Seleucia were Assembled by them about 50 Bishops out of Bythinia and other adjacent parts In this Synod they confirmed the Sum of Faith read in the Council of Ariminum At Antioch in the 25 th year of Constantius his Reign another Council was Convened with design or ordering matters so that for the time to come no man should call the Son of God Consubstantial with the Father nor yet of a different substance from the Father but neither in this Council could the Arrians perfect their intended purpose of inventing a new Sum of Faith At Laodicea not that Laodicea nigh Antioch in Syria but at Laodicea the Metropolis of Phyrgia and one of the Seven Churches of Asia to which John in his Banishment wrote from Patmos At this Laedicea a Synod was assembled about the year 368. wherein nothing was determined concerning matters of Faith only the Worshipping of Angels was damned as an horrible Idolatry and a forsaking of Christ also the Books of the Canonical Scriptures were particularly set forth wherein no mention was made of the Books of the Machabees of Ecclesiasticus or other Apocryphal Books In Illyricum about the year 370 under the Emperours Valentinian and Valens not yet infected with the Arrian Heresie was held a Council wherein the Nicene Faith had confirmation and allowance At Lampsacum nigh the Hellespont under the Emperour Valens was a Synod of Macedonian Hereticks who ratified the Council of Seleucia and damned that of Constantinople by the Acatians At Rome under the Emperour Valentinian in the West Damasus Bishop of Rome Convened a Council wherein was confirmed the Nicene Faith At Constantinople in the year 383 under Theodosius the Emperour was a General Council held consisting of 150 Bishops whereof 36 were infected with the Macedonian Heresie which blasphemously held the Holy Ghost to be a Creature a Minister and Servant not Consubstantial with the Father and the Son From this Council the said Hereticks having withdrawn themselves they which remained in Council damned the Heresie of Macedonius and confirmed the Nicene Faith with ampliation of that part of the Symbol which concerned the Holy Ghost in this manner viz. I believe in the Holy Spirit our Lord Giver of life who proceedeth from the Father and with the Father and the Son is to be worshipped and glorified This Council was held under Gratian and Theodosius the Great and Damasus They condemned and discharged Macedonius Bishop of Constantinople for his perfidious opposing the Deity of the Holy Ghost together with Maximus Cynicus by reason of his Doctrine against Discipline The Emperour null'd all Confessions except that of those who acknowledged Christ Coessential with the Father which our present Liturgy retains under the name of the Nicene Creed It is thought that Gregory Nazianzen compiled it according to the sense of the Synod At Constantinople under Theodosius another Council was held whence a Synodick Letter was sent to the Bishops then Conven'd at Rome declaring the troubles they sustained by Hereticks and as to matters of Discipline recommended unto them the Canons of the Council of Nice At Constantinople in the Fifth year of Theodosius his Reign a great National Council was again Conven'd wherein the Hereticks were divided among themselves touching what Credit they should give in matters of Faith to the Fathers that preceded their time whereupon that good Emperour rent in pieces the Sums of the Arrian Eunomian and Macedonian Faith and Ordained the Homousian Faith only to take place At Carthage the Second Council was assembled under Theodosius nigh the time of the foresaid General Council held at Constantinople wherein the Nicene Faith was confirmed abstinence from Matrimonial Society with Infidels and Hereticks recommended to Ecclesiastical persons At Nice there was another Council An. 181. under Constantine which wholly restored the Images and Statues of Irene together with the Reliques formerly broken in pieces by Leo Isaurus his Grandfather and Constantine Copronymus his Great Grandfather the business being chiefly promoted by Gregory the Second and the Third together with Adrian the First and Tarasius Patriarch of Constantinople There met at this Council which is one of the Greek or Eastern Oecumenical Councils 350 Bishops who with the said Tarasius President of the said Council by 22 Canons condemned Image-breakers for Hereticks Bellarmine and Baronius imagine that this Synod was condemned by the Fathers at the Council of Franckfort under Charles the Great which yet is denied by Binnius Surius and others according to Longus pag. 632. At Carthage a Third Council was Assembled in the year 399 at which Augustine Bishop of Hippo was present wherein it was inter alia Ordained That the Bishop of Rome should be called the Bishop of the First Seat but not the High Priest or the Prince of Priests Likewise That nothing except the holy Canonical Scriptures should be read in Churches under the notion of Holy Books At Carthage a Fourth National Council was held under the Reign of Honorius about the year 401. consisting of 214 Bishops at which Augustine Bishop of Hippo was also present and wherein were nigh as many Canons made as were Bishops assembled wherein among other things it was Ordained That a Bishop should admit no man to a Spiritual Office without Advice of the Clergy nor pronounce any Sentence without such Advice That Refusers to pay unto the Church the Oblations of persons Deceased should be Excommunicated Whereby it appears That Oblationes Defunctorum were not Soul-Masses said for the Dead but Charity by way of Testamental Legacies At Cyprus under the Reigns of Arcadius and Honorius was Assembled a Council by Epiphanius And at Alexandria by Theophilus under pretence of damning the Books of Origen Also at Constantinople by the malice of Eudoxia the Wife of Arcadius the Emperour to depose John Chrysostome Bishop of Constantinople At Carthage about the year 419. a Fifth Council was held wherein the Opinions of Pelagius and Coelestius were damned as Heretical and whereby it was Declared That the Adoration of Reliques was at this time the Custome of Ethnicks and Appointed That Supplication should be made to the Emperours That such Reliques as were found in Images Groves and Trees or elsewhere should be abolished At Toledo in Spain under the Reigns of Arcadius and Honorius was a Council assembled for Confirmation of the Nicene Council and refutation of some Errors At Melevitum in Numidia was Assembled under the Reign of Arcadius a Council whereof St. Augustine was President which was Assembled chiefly to finish the work begun at the Fifth Council of Carthage in
condemning the Heresies of Pelagius and Coelestius concerning the power of Mans Nature not supported by the Grace of God and Free Will of Man to do good of it self as also to inhibit Appeals to Bishops beyond Sea on pain of being secluded from the Communion of all African Bishops At Carthage in the year 402 under Honorius and Theodosius the Second a National Council of 217 Bishops was assembled which continued for the space of Six years The business of this Council was prevented by a Controversie happening between them and the Bishops of Rome who successively endeavoured but not successfully to perswade the African Bishops that they were under the Sovereignty and Jurisdiction of the Bishops of Rome to whom this Council would not allow of any Appeal from the Bishops of Africa At Bagaia in Africa about the year 433. certain Donatists to the Number of 310 assembled themselves in Council chiefly for the deposition of Maximinianus Bishop of Bagaia whom they Deposed and Accursed because he had renounced their Heresie and had recovered many others from the Error of that way At Ephesus in the year 434. and in the Eighth year of the Reign of Theodosius the Second by some called Theodosius the Younger was a General Council assembled against the Heretick Nestorius Bishop of Constantinople which Council consisted of above Two hundred Bishops by Command from the Emperour By which Council Nostorius for his Heresie in denying the Son of the Virgin Mary to be God and consequently the Personal Union of the Divine and Humane Nature of Christ was Banished to Oasis This was the first General Council of Ephesus promoted by Celestine the First wherein Two hundred Bishops as aforesaid condemned Nestorius together with Carisius his flattering Presbyter who instead of Two Natures acknowledged divers Persons in Christ and therefore pleaded that the Blessed Virgin Mary should be styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In this Council Cyrillus of Alexandria is recorded President whom Nestorius being piously and brotherly invited to a better Opinion proudly contemned and having craftily allured John of Antioch to his party Anathematiz'd him and the Council who had formerly Anathematiz'd him The matter being related to the Emperour and throughly understood Cyrillus and his are cleared but Nestorius with his party is Banished as aforesaid to Oasis a Sandy Habitation where like another Cain says a Modern Historian roving here and there Blaspheming at length his Tongue being consumed and eaten up by Worms he breathed out his last There are it seems two Copies of this Council the First observing Eight the Second Thirteen Canons which are comprehended in the Anathema's of Cyrillus The Massilianites termed also Euchites and Enthusiasts were condemned by this Council and thereby the integrity of the Nicene Creed confirmed At Ephesus under Theodosius the Second was likewise a Particular Council assembled by Flavianus Bishop of Constantinople who condemned Eutyches an Abbot of Constantinople for Affirming That in Christ after the Union of the Divine and Humane Natures there were no longer Two Natures which absurd Opinion Flavianus damned as Heretical So that the occasion of this Second Council of Ephisus An. 449. was this Eutyches an Archimandrite of Constantinople who after Manes and Apollinaris denied the Flesh of Christ to be like ours but affirmed that falling from heaven like the Rays of the Sun it penetrated the Virgins womb And so he denied that Two Natures were in Christ Incarnate but asserted that his Flesh was changed into his Divinity for which he was as aforesaid condemned by Flavianus Patriarch of Constantinople and Eusebius Bishop of Doril and others their Associates yet by the help of Chrysaphius the Eunuch and Eudoxia the Empress whom he had seduced he prevailed with Theodosius that the matter might be determined by a Famous Synod for which reason this at Ephesus by the Emperours Authority was called where 128 Bishops met Dioscorus of Alexandria being President one so full of Eutychianism that Eutyches is absolved and the reclaimers forced says the Historian to subscribe by Club-Arguments Flavianus opposing it was so suriously trodden upon that three days after he died besides many very Learned Bishops discharged of their Places yet not long after all this was dashed in pieces by the most Famous Council of Chalcedon At Berytus in Phoenicia was held a Council about this time where in the Cause of Ibas Bishop of Edessa whom Dioscorus had deposed was revived and himself justified and absolved At Agatha in France was a Council held wherein nothing was more remarkable than that they had liberty to meet together by the Command of Alaricus King of Gothes who at that time had the Sovereignty in that parr of France called Gallia Norbonensis whence it appears That Councils both General and National were in all Countreys Convened by the Authority of Sovereign Princes At Chalcedon in Bythinia in the year 455. and in the Fourth year of Marcianus the Emperour was a General Council at which was present in person the Emperour and 630 Bishops and Reverend Fathers from most parts of the World In this Council Dioscorns Bishop of Alexandria together with Eutyches and Juvenalis Bishops at Jerusalem was condemned as an Heretick for absolving the Heretick Eutyches in the Council at Ephesus and acting other Crimes whereof he was then accused In this Council it was Ordained That men should believe that the Natures of Christ albeit that they were united yet were they not confounded as Eutyches had Heretically affirmed Also in this Council it was Ordained That Anatelius Bishop of Constantinople and his Successors should have the chief Dignity next unto the Chair of Rome This Council was called by the said Emperour Martianus against the said Eutyches Abbot of Constantinople and his Champion Dioscorus of Alexandria the suppositious Acts of the Council held at Ephesus were condemned by this Council those of Ephesus being in favour of Eutyches who affirmed one only Nature to be in Christ viz. his Divine Nature after his Incarnation It is not clear or certain who was President of this Council of Chalcedon excepting the Emperour and Judges Moderators The matters thereof were for the most part by favouring parties between Leo the First of Rome and Anatholius Patriarch of Constantinople At Ravenna in the Sixth Century was a Council Assembled by occasion of the Schism happening on the Election of Symmachus to the See of Rome whose Competitor was Laurentius afterwards made Bishop of Nuceria In Symmachus his time were no less than Six Councils held at Rome all Convened by Authority of Theodoricus King of Gothes who then Reigned in Italy and all of little importance otherwise than the Endeavours that then were for the Supremacy whereat they aimed At Valentia in Spain were assembled Two Councils called Herdense and Valentinum both very obscure Councils there being in the one but Eight Bishops present
into the Church albeit Divine Service be not then celebrating unless it be to hear the word preached which being ended he is immediately to depart or stand at the Church-door in the time of Divine Service and hearing the same albeit he go not within the Church it self or thrust himself into the company of others when it is in his power to avoid it or lastly when he continues too long secure under such Sentence of Excommunication without repentance whereby the Law concludes him so manacled by his obstinacy as no Spiritual Physick can have any operation upon him And although regularly the Return of such a one is to be expected usque ad annum yet in this Kingdom quoad incovationem Brachii Secularis it is sufficient if Forty daies be expired after his Excommunication Ibid. c. 1. authoritate glos in verb. Contemnentes And whereas we often in the Law meet with certain Cases of Offences incurring the Sentence of Excommunication ipso facto that is as aforesaid nullo hominis ministerio interveniente Requiritur tamen even in that case Sententia Declaratoria C. cum secund Leges de Haeret. li. 6. Lindw de Foro Comp. c. 1. glos in verb. ipso facto 8. It is therefore not impertinent here to insert what principally those Offences are on the Guilty whereof the Law doth inflict this Excommunication ipso facto Lindwood tells us that there are found among the Canons and Constitutions Provincial these Cases following wherein Excommunication ipso facto is incurr'd viz. 1 A wilful and malicious impeding the execution of the Canon against Incontinency specially in Ecclesiasticks as to Concubines 2 A clandestine and surreptitious Proceeding at Law even to the Writ of Banishment against an innocent person and ignorant of the Proceedings 3 Bigamy 4 False Accusing of any Innocent Clergy-man before a Temporal Judge whereby he happens to suffer under the Secular Power 5 A laying Snares to entrap any in holy Orders whereby afterwards to charge them falsly before the Secular Powers with Crimes whereof they were not guilty 6 A violation of lawful Sequestrations made by the Bishops their Vicars general or principal Officials 7 The exercise of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction by any Clerk married or by any Lay-person in matters only and properly pertaining to the Cognizance of the Church 8 Disobedience to the Gregorian Constitution forbidding the holding of Two Benefices Incompatible cum Cura animarum without a Dispensation 9 A procuring to be Presented to a Benefice that is already full of an Incumbent by virtue of the Writs of Quare non admisit or Quare impedit or the like 10 Abettors and Advisors of any to fraudulent Conveyances or Deeds of Gift in fraudem Ecclesiae Regis Creditorum aut haeredum 11 All such as hinder any of what quality soever that are legally Testable from making their last Wills and Testaments or afterwards do unjustly obstruct the due execution of the same 12 All such as hinder the devotion of the people in making their Offerings and paying their Tithes converting them to their own use 13 All such as deny the gathering of the Tithes of any Fruit or molest and hinder the Collectors thereof 14 All Lay-persons who usurp upon such Oblations and Offerings as are due and appertain only to Ecclesiastical persons without their assent and the assent of the Bishop 15 Sacrilegious persons and all such as invade the just Rights Liberties or Revenues of the Church or otherwise unjustly possess themselves de bonis Ecclesiasticis 16 All Bayliffs and other Officers that unjustly enter upon the Goods of the Church or unduly exact from the same or commit Waste upon any the Revenues of a Church vacant 17 All Oppugners of Episcopal Authority or that resist and oppose the exercise of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and all such as disswade others from their due Obedience thereunto 18 All such as being imprisoned for their Contempt to some Ecclesiastical Sentence are thence set at liberty contrary to the Liberties and Customes of the Church of England being Excommunicate persons when they were first apprehended 19 All such as violently usurp upon the propriety of such Trees and Fruits as grow in the Church-yards rooting them up or felling them down or mowing down the Grass thereof contrary to the will and without the consent of the Rector or Vicar of any Church or Chappel or their Tenants 20 All such as should non ritè solemnize Prohibited Marriages that is such as have any Canonical Impediment 21 All such as contrary to the true Catholick sense shall assert any thing or lay down positions or make propositions sauouring of Heresie publickly in the Schools 22 All such as in their Preaching or otherwise shall violate the Canon that enjoyns a due examination and approbation of persons before they are admitted to Preach the Word of God 23 All such as touching the Sacraments assert any thing beside or contrary to the determination of the Church or call such things into doubt publickly as are defined and stated by the Church 24 All such as in the Universities do after a premonition to the contrary hold any Opinions or assert any Doctrines Propositions or Conclusions touching the Catholick Faith or good manners of an ill tendency contrary to the determination of the Church 25 All such Clerks as without Ecclesiastical Authority shall of themselves or by any Lay-power intrude themselves into the possession of any Parochial Church or other Ecclesiastical Living having Curam animarum These Cases and some others now not of use in this Realm are enumerated by Lindwood Lindw de Sententia Excom c. ult gloss in verb. Candelis accensis But there are very many other Cases in the Canon Law that fall under this Excommunication ipso facto by which in the Law is ever understood the Major Excommunicatio and was wont to be published and denounced in the Church Four solemn daies in every year when the Congregation was likeliest to be most full and that in Majorem terrorem 9. The Causes of Excommunication ipso facto according to the Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical of the Church of England now in force are such as these viz. 1 Impugners of the Kings Supremacy 2 Affirmers of the Church of England as now established to be not a true and Apostolical Church 3 Impugners of the Publick Worship of God establish'd in the Church 4 Impugners of the Articles of Religion establish'd in the Church of England 5 Impugners of the Rites and Ceremonies established in the Church of England 6 Impugners of the Government of the Church by Archbishops Bishops c. 7 Impugners of the Form of making and Consecrating Archbishops Bishops c. in the Church of England 8 Authors of Schisms in the Church 9 Maintainers of Schismaticks Conventicles and Constitutions made in Conventicles Likewise by the said Canons the Ecclesiastical Censure of Excommunication is incurr'd by all such Ministers as Revolt from the Articles unto which they subscribed at their