tradehant The Seventh was at Nice under Constantine and his Mother Irene where 367 Bishops were assembled against the Adversaries of Images whom they subjected to their Anathema 2 Of Particular Synods one was held in the Temple of the Apostles in Constantinople under the Patriarch Photius which was called the First and Second Another under Leo and Constantine in the most Famous Temple Sanctae Dei Sapientiae or Sanctae Sophiae which confirmed the Seventh Synod Another at Ancyra more ancient than the first Universal Synod Another at Caesarea more ancient than that at Ancyra Another at Gangra after the Nicene against Eustachius who despised Marriage and taught things not consonant to Ecclesiastical Tradition Another at Antioch a City in Syria where in truth were two Synods the one under Aurelianus against Paulus Samosatenus who said that Christ was meer Man the other under Constantius Son to Constantine the Great Another at Laodicea scituate in Phrygia Pacatiana Another at Sardica that when Constantius embraced the foresaid Sect his Brother Constans Emperour of Old Rome by his Letters threatning him with a War if he would not desist from perverting the Church his Answer was That he sought no other Doctrine than what was most agreeable to the Catholick Faith whereupon by their and the Bishop of Romes appointment 341 Bishops were Conven'd in a Synod which having established the power and authority of the Nicene Synod did constitute divers Canons for the Church Another at Carthage under Theodosius where 217 Bishops were assembled and with them the Popes Vicegerents this Carthage was part of Charchedon and that a Province of Africa 3 The Canons of the Fathers are taken according to the Roman computation out of the Epistles partly of Dionysius Alexandrinus partly of Petrus Alexandrinus partly of the Wonder-working Gregorius partly also out of the Epistles of Bazil or Basilius the Great partly out of the Epistle of Gregory or Gregorius Nyssenus to the B. of Melita partly out of the Responses of Timotheus Alexandrinus partly out of the Responses of the Constantinopolitan Synod to certain Monks Nicholaus the Patriarch being President partly out of the Epistles of Cyril or Cyrillus and partly out of the Epistles of Nicephorus the Patriach 4 The Canons of the Holy Apostles a book falsly ascribed to the Apostles are in number Eighty Five according to a modest Computation if you have any Faith to spare at least enough to believe the Church of Rome in that as in other Points infallible But the Canons indeed of the Apostles which are of Order and External Government do oblige as Dr. Taylor says the Conscience by being accepted in several Churches not by their first Institution and were fitted only to Times and Places and present Necessities For says he the Apostolical Decree of Abstaining from Blood was observed by more Churches than those of Syria and Cilicia to which the Canon was directed and the Colledge of Widows or Deaconesses derived it self into the manners of the Western Churches And the Apostles in their first Preaching and Conversation in Jerusalem instituted a coenobitick life and had all things in Common with Believers indeed no man was obliged to it Of the same nature were their Canons Counsels and Advices The Canon concerning Widows Let not a Widow be chosen under 60 years and yet Justinian suffered one of 40 years old to be chosen Novel 123. c. 12 13. And the Canon of the Apostles forbidding to eat things strangled is no where observed in the Western Churches of Christendom In the beginning of the Fourth Century above 1300 years since we find our Bishops British Bishops at the Councils of Arles Nice Sardis and Ariminum a clear Evidence of the flourishing state of Christianity so long since in this Island At Arles in France conven'd touching the Donatists appeared for the Britains Eborius Bishop of York Restitutus Bishop of London Adelfius Bishop of the City called the Colony of London which some suppose to be Colchester others Maldon in Essex Sacerdos a Priest both by Name and Office Arminius a Deacon An. 313. At the Synod of Nice in Bithynia An. 325. to suppress Arrianism were British Bishops present as Athanasius and Hilary Bishop of Poictiers affirm At the Council of Sardis in Thracia conven'd by Constanitus and Constans Sons to Constantine the Great the British Bishops were likewise present when the Arrians were condemn'd and Athanasius acquitted And at the Council of Ariminum in Italy the British Bishops were also present who according to Athanasius were about An. 360. summoned to divers Forein Councils in remote parts As also here at home in and after the Seventh Century were divers particular Councils and Synods the first whereof according to Stapleton out of Bede called The first of the English Nation was conven'd at Hertford by Theodorus Archbishop of Canterbury who succeeded Deusdedit in that See in this Council the Observation of Easter was settled according to the Romish Rite yet whosoever will have this Council to be as aforesaid The first of the English Nation must understand it the First whose Canons are compleatly extant Bede lib. 4. c. 5. About the year 740 Ethelbald King of Mercia with Cuthbert Archbishop of Canterbury called a Council at Cliffe in Kent the acts of which Synod were 31 Canons among which is was inter alia Ordain'd That Prayers should publickly be made for Kings and Princes But some few years before this the said Theodorus held a Synod or Council of Bishops at Hatfield by authority whereof he divided the Province of Mercia which Sexwolphus then governed alone into five Bishopricks viz. to Chester Worcester Lichfield Cedema in Lindsey and to Dorchester In the year 692 a great Council was held at Becanceld by Withred King of Kent and Bertuald Archbishop of Britain wherein many things were concluded in favour of the Church About the same time a Council was held at Berghamsteed by the said Withred King of Kent at which Council Bishop Wilfrid was restored to York whence he departed for Rome upon the endeavours which Theodorus Archbishop of Canterbury had used to have that Diocess of York divided In the year 801 Ethelard the Archbishop called a Synod at Clivesho in Kent where by power from the Pope he rivited that 's the word the Archbishoprick into the City of Canterbury There was likewise at Celichyth an eminent Council under Wolphred who succeeded Ethelard Archbishop of Canterbury But nigh one hundred years before this viz. about the year 709 a Synod was assembled at Alncester in Worcestershire to promote the building of Evesham-Abbey And not long after another Synod was called at London to introduce the Doctrine of Image-Worship into England now first beginning to appear in the publick practice thereof Also above one hundred years before that viz. about the year 601. Augustine by the aid of Ethelbert King of Kent called a Council of Saxon and British Bishops to meet in the Confines of the Mercians and
the Convocations of the same Clergy are and always have been and ought to be assembled only by the Kings Writ The Convocation is under the power and Authority of the King 21 E. 3. 45. b. 12. After the Reign of King H. 8. this Supremacy in the Crown was signally exercised by King Ed. 6. styling himself Supream Head under Christ of the Church of England and Ireland in the Preface of his Injunctions given as well to all the Clergy as Laity of this Realm the Close whereof is as followeth viz. All which singular Injunctions the Kings Majesty ministreth unto his Clergy and their Successors and to all his loving Subjects straitly charging and commanding them to observe and keep the same upon pain of Deprivation Sequestration of Fruits or Benefices Suspension Excommunication and such other Coercion as to Ordinaries or others having Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction whom his Majesty hath appointed for the due execution of the same shall be seen convenient Charging and commanding them to see these Injunctions observed and kept of all persons being under their Jurisdiction as they will answer to his Majesty for the contrary And his Majesties pleasure is That every Justice of Peace being required shall assist the Ordinaries and every of them for the due execution of the said Injunctions 14. The Three first Articles to be enquired of at the Visitations within the Province of Canterbury in the second year of the Reign of the said King Edward the Sixth were as followeth viz. 1. Whether Parsons Vicars and Curates and every of them have purely and sincerely without colour or dissimulation four times in the year at the least preached against the Usurped power pretended Authority and Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome 2. Whether they have preached and declared likewise four times in the year at least that the Kings Majesties power authority and preheminence within his Realms and Dominions is the highest power under God 3. Whether any person hath by writing cyphring preaching or teaching deed or act obstinately holden and stand with to extol set-forth maintain or defend the authority jurisdiction or power of the Bishop of Rome or of his See heretofore claimed and usurped or by any pretence obstinately or maliciously invented any thing for the extolling of the same or any part thereof Likewise by the Articles of Religion agreed on by the Convocation held in London and published An. 1553. by the Authority of King Ed. 6. it is declared That the King of England is Supream Head in Earth next under Christ of the Church of England c. and that the Bishop of Rome hath no Jurisdiction in this Realm The like you have in the Articles of Religion agreed on by the Archbishops and Bishops of both Provinces and the whole Clergy in the Convocation held in London An. 1562. and published by the Authority of Queen Elizabeth That the Queens Majesty hath the chief Power in this Realm of England and other her Dominions unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil in all Causes doth appertain and is not nor ought to be subject to any Forreign Jurisdiction Which Articles being the Articles of the Church of England were afterwards ratified and confirmed by his Majesty King CHARLES I. of ever Blessed Memory by his Royal Declaration thereunto prefixed in which Declaration you have as followeth viz. That we are Supream Governour of the Church of England and that if any difference rise about the External Policy concerning the Injunctions Canons or other Constitutions whatsoever thereto belonging the Clergy in their Convocation is to order and settle them having first obtained leave under our Broad Seal so to do and We approving their said Ordinances and Constitutions provided that none bâ— made contrary to the Laws and Customes of the Land Likewise in the first of the aforesaid Injunctions of King Ed. 6. as also in the first of the Injunctions given by Q. Elizabeth concerning both the Clergy and Laity of this Realm published Ann. 1559. being the first year of her Reign it is enjoyned That all Deans Archdeacons Parsons Vicars and all other Ecclesiastical persons shall faithfully keep and observe c. all and singular Laws and Statutes made for the restoring to the Crown the ancient Jurisdiction over the State Ecclesiastical and abolishing of all Forreign power repugnant to the same c. By the Statute of 25 H. 8. c. 19. Appeals to Rome are prohibited and it is Ordained that in default of Justice in any of the Courts of the Archbishops of this Realm it shall be lawful to appeal to the King in his Court of Chancery and thereupon a Commission shall be granted c. And by a Proviso towards the end of that Statute an Appeal is given to the King in Chancery upon Sentences in places exempt in the same manner as was before used to the See of Rome And as by the said Statute there may be an Appeal to the King in Chancery when the Suit is in the Archbishops Court or some Peculiar exempt so in some Cases the Appeal may be to the King generally as he is Supream Head of all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction within the Realm for by the Statutes made in the time of King Hen. 8. the Crown was only remitted and restored to its Ancient Jurisdiction which had been usurped by the Bishop of Rome 33 Ed. 3. Fitz. Aid del Roy 103. Reges sacro oleo uncti Spiritualis Jurisdictionis sunt capaces Rex est Mixta persona cum Sacerdote Et causa Spiritualis Committi potest Principi Laico Cassan in Catal. glo mund p. 5. Consid 24. The King of England c. is Persona Sacra mixta cum Sacerdote and at his Coronation by a solemn Consecration and Unction becomes a Spiritual person Sacred and Ecclesiastical and then hath tam Vestem Dalmaticam as an emblem of his Royal Priesthood quam Coronam Regni in respect of his Regal power in Temporals and is Supream Governour in all Causes and over all Persons as well Ecclesiastical as Civil The King is Supream Ordinary by the Ancient Common Law of England before the Statute of 24 H. 8. cap. 12. for a Resignation might be made to him he might make a Grant of a Church to a man to hold to his own proper use he might not only exempt any Ecclesiastical person out of the Jurisdiction of the Ordinary but also give him Episcopal Jurisdiction he might Present to Free Chappels in default of the Dean by Lapse and that as Ordinary and in respect of his Supream Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction he might dispense with one not lawfully born to be a Priest albeit the Ecclesiastical Laws allowed within this Realm do prohibite it but the reason is for that it is not Malum in se but Malum prohibitum In a word All that the Pope was wont to do in such cases within this Realm as
Ecclesiastical Court might proceed to punish the Offender who offered violence to a Priest the which de jure it might do by proceeding Ex Officio pro salute animae Dammages on an Action of Battery in the case reserved to the Common Law To conclude The Protestation which Bellamera the Canonist in the Proem to his Lecture on the Clementine Constitutions makes shall as to this Repertorium Canonicum Jurisve Anglico-Ecclesiastici Compendium be mine Id submittens correctioni determinationi tam Canonum Ecclesiasticorum quam Statutorum Jurumque Publice Forensium Secularium cujuslibet melius sentientis Protestans quod si in praesenti Opusculo de lapsu chalami aut inadvertentia vel forte ex ignorantia aliqua jam Scripsero id praeter intentionem scribere me contigerit Si etiam aliqua Scripsero quae errorem saperent aut male sonarent illa ex nunc Revoco volo haberi pro non Scriptis Determinationibusque Ecclesiae Anglicanae dicti Juris Forensis Oraculis semper in omnibus volo stare Et hanc Protestationem volo pro Repetita haberi in quolibet Dictorum meorum etiam condicendorum ut si reprobantur dicta Actor non propter hoc reprobetur The several CHAPTERS of the Ensuing Abridgment CHAP. PAGE 1. OF His Majesties Supremacy 1 2. Of Archbishops 12 3. Of Bishops and Ordinaries 22 4. Of Guardians of the Spiritualties 39 5. Of Congé d'Eslire Election and Confirmation 43 6. Of Consecration 46 7. Of Deans and Chapters 51 8. Of Archdeacons 60 9. Of Procurations Synodals and Pentecostals 67 10. Of Diocesan Chancellors Commissaries Officials as also of Consistories 80 11. Of Courts Ecclesiastical and their Jurisdiction 94 12. Of Churches Chappels and Church-yards 134 13. Of Churchwardens Questmen and Sidemen 159 14. Of Consolidation and Vnion of Churches 169 15. Of Dilapidations 173 16. Of Patrons and De jure Patronatus 178 17. Of Parsons and Parsonages 185 18. Of Vicars Vicarages and Benefices 196 19. Of Advowsons 220 20. Of Appropriations 220 21. Of Commendams 230 22. Of Lapse 242 23. Of Collation Presentation and Nomination 251 24. Of Examination Admission Institution and Induction 269 25. Of Avoidance and Next Avoidance also of Cession 282 26. Of Pluralities 291 27. Of Deprivation 305 28. Of Incumbents also of Residence and Non-Residence 316 29. Of Abbots and Abbies also of Chauntreys and of the Court of Augmentations 326 30. Of Annates or First-Fruits also of Aumone or Frank-Almoin 335 31. Of Altarage 339 32. Of Tithes with the Incidents thereof 344 33. Of Banns 465 34. Of Adultery 469 35. Of Bastards and Bastardy 477 36. Of Divorce also of Alimony 492 37. Of Defamation 514 38. Of Sacriledge 528 39. Of Simony 535 40. Of Blasphemy Heresie and Hereticks 559 41. Of Councils Synods and Convocations 584 42. Of Excommunication 623 43. Of the Statutes Articuli Cleri and Circumspecte agatis 639 44. Of several Writs at Common Law pertinent to this Subject 643 AN ABRIDGEMENT OF Ecclesiastical LAWS CHAP. I. Of the Kings Supremacy 1. A Description thereof or what it is 2. The Establishment thereof by Statute Laws 3. The Oath of the Kings Supremacy when first Enacted the Cause thereof 4. The King in his own Dominions Dei Vicarius 5. The King Supream Governour under God of the Church in England c. 6. Impugners of the Kings Supremacy how censured by the Canon 7. In matters Ecclesiastical the King hath here the same power de jure which the Pope formerly exercised by Usurpation 8. The Kings of this Realm anciently made their own Canons and Ecclesiastical Constitutions without the Popes Authority 9. The King is Lex viva in some cases may dispence with some Canons 10. Provisoes of some Statutes in right of the Kings Supremacy 11. No Canons or Ecclesiastical Constitutions to be made or to be of force to oblige the Subject without the Royal Assent 12. The Regal Supremacy asserted by the Ecclesiastical Injunctions of King Ed. 6. 13. The same further asserted by other Eccles Powers and Authorities 14. The Regal Supremacy asserted in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth 1. THis Ecclesiastical Abridgment begins with the Regal Supremacy a Point which cannot be touch'd with too much tenderness such of the Church of Rome as question the validity thereof may be presumed not to have consulted that Learned Canonist of their own Jo. Quintinus Hoedeus where he says That Nemini dubium quin in Primitiva Ecclesia de rebus Personis Ecclesiasticis Principes jus dixerint The Emperours were all Secular Princes who by those Laws which they established touching Persons and Things Ecclesiastical proclaimed to all the world their Supremacy therein The Thirteen first Titles of the First Book of the Emperour Justinian's Code being the Constitutions of divers Emperours do treat and judge of Things and Persons meerly Ecclesiastical yea the Emperours Areadius and Honorius ejected a Bishop as well out of his Title of Ecclesiastical Dignity as out of his Episcopal See and commanded him to be Banished for disturbing the publick Peace l. quicunque C. de Episc Cleric By this word Supremacy is here understood that undoubted Right and ancient Jurisdiction over the State Ecclesiastical within these his Majesties Realms and Dominions with the abolishing of all Forein and Usurped Power repugnant to the same which the Laws and Statutes have restored to the Crown of this Kingdom and now invested in the King as the Highest Power under God within these his Majesties Realms and Dominions unto whom all persons within the same in all Causes and Matters as well Ecclesiastical as Temporal do owe their Loyalty and Obedience before and above all other Powers and Potentates on Earth whatever 2. By the Injunctions of King Ed. 6. to the Clergy all persons Ecclesiastical having cure of Souls were Four times a year to preach in vindication of the Kings Supremacy and in opposition to the usurped power of the Bishop of Rome in this Kingdom There were divers Laws made in the time of King H. 8. for the extinguishment of all Forein Power and for the restoring unto the Crown of this Realm the Ancient Rights and Jurisdictions of the same which is the substance of the Preamble of the Statute of 1 Eliz. cap. 1. The express Letter and meaning whereof is as Sir Edward Coke observes to restore and unite to the Crown the Ancient Jurisdiction Spiritual or Ecclesiastical where as he says the First clause of the Body of the Act being to let in the Restitution of the Ancient Right and Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical within the Realm doth abolish all Forein Jurisdiction out of the Realm And then followeth the principal Clause of Restitution and Uniting of the ancient Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical being the main purpose of the Act in these words viz. Be it Enacted That such Jurisdiction Spiritual or Ecclesiastical as by any Spiritual Power or Authority hath heretofore been or lawfully may be exercised or used
the Revenues of the Church first came to be divided and alotted to several Ministeries then it was that this payment was first made to the Bishop by the Beneficed Clergy within his Diocess Duaren ut supr l. 2. c. 1. fo 53. It is probable that this division of the Church Revenues was not far distant in time from the first or original distinguishment of Parochial Bounds upon which affair Pope Euaristus otherwise called Anacletus Graecus did first enter about the year 110. Volateran l. 22. Anast Biblioth Baron Annal. ad An. 112. nu 4 5 6. and was afterwards carried on by Pope Dionysius about the year 260. Baron Annal. ad An. 260. nu 17. Parochial Distribution in England was by Theodorus Archbishop of Canterbury about the year 668. Spelm. Concil 152 But Speed saith by Honorius the fifth Archbishop also of Canterbury about the year 636. It may not hence be inferr'd that this Cathedraticum or Synodal was only paid ratione Synodi for it was sometimes and very anciently paid also at Visitations as appears by the seventh Council at Toledo mentioned in the Decree 10. q. 3. c. inter caetera casus ibi where there is a Canon against the exacting of more than Two shillings only pro Cathedratico in Episcopal Visitations This Cense or payment though it be Onus Ecclesiasticum yet it is not Onus innovatum but Onus Ordinarium and by imposition of Law as appears by the Provincial Constitutions Solutio Cathedratici Synodatici Procurationum ratione Visitationis alia hujusmodi de quibus non dubitatur quin sunt Onera Ordinaria suum capiunt effectum ab impositione Legis Lindw de Offic. Vic. c. quoniam gl in ver Onera Ecclesiastica Yet Procurations differ from the other in this that Procurations are only Pensions but the other are properly Census The Synody or Synodal is by the Stat. of 34 H. 8. reckoned as a Church-due for recovery whereof provision is made by that Act and good reason for the said Synody or Synodal is a Pension certain and valued in the King's Books 10. The aforesaid Ingenious Author of the Historical Discourse touching Procurations c. after his deep search into Antiquity doth conjecturally conceive that the Pentecostal otherwise called Whitson-farthings is nothing else but the Annual Commemoration continuation or repetition of an Ancient payment or pension issuing out of the Oblations brought by the people long since specially at the time of the Foundation or Dedication of their several Churches or at some other Solemnity viz. the moiety or Third part of the Oblations then made The same being reserved by the Bishop and by a Contract seu quasi Contractu between him and the Founder of such Church or Priest assigned to attend the same settled in and upon the Episcopal See and payable yearly at or about the Feast of Pentecost These Pentecostalia were not as some conceive the Peter-pence here anciently paid for they were usually paid either at the Feast of St. Peter and Paul or on Lammas day but these Pentecostals seem to be paid upon or about the time that doth chiefly denominate the same viz. at the Feast of Pentecost and in the nature thereof seem to have reference to an Oblation frequently made by the Christians in the Elder times of the Church and to have some tendency to that Liberal Devotion which was then as frequent as Sacriledge is now In Leg. 18 Guilielm Conquestor De Denariis S. Petri seu Vectigali Romano viz. Liber homo qui habuerit Averia Campestria 30 denariis aestimanda dabit Denarium S. Petri. Pro 4 denariis quos donaverit Dominus quieti erunt Bordarii ejus ejus Boner ejus Servientes Burgensis qui de propriis Catallis habet id quod dimidia Marca aestimandum est det Denarium S. Petri. Qui in Lege Danorum est Liber homo habet Averia Campestria quae dimidia Marca in argento aestimantur debet dare Denarium S. Petro. Et per Denarium quem donaverit Dominus erunt quieti ii qui resident in suo Dominico Vid. Sâ—ldeni ad Eadmerum Notae Spicelegium p. 179. Leg. 18. By this Law of William the Conquerour it appears that the Peterpence had no affinity with the Pentecostals In Ancient times when the Bishop did visit Ecclesiatim his usage was to celebrate the Mass in the Church which he visited which indeed was every Parish within his Diocess and that by his Episcopal Authority the whole Diocess in respect of the Bishop being by the Law but Paroechia sua 10. q. 3. c. Quia Duarenus passim as the whole Province is said to be in respect of the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury At this Mass the people used to make their Offerings to the Bishop and one of the causes or reasons why or wherefore the people in Ancient times were obliged to bring their Oblations to the Church was propter Consuetudinem and that certis Festivitatibus among which the Feast of Pentecost was and is a most special one at which Feast there was in many places here in England an Oblation Anciently made by inferiour Churches and Parishes to the principal Mother-Church and whence probably the word Pentecostalia had its original denomination These Offerings by the Canon Law were and are only due to the Clergy and interdicted to the Laity sub districtione Anathematis 10. q. 1. c. Quia Sacerdotes c. Sanct. Patrum ibi In some places the Deans and Prebendaries of Cathedral Churches have them It is said That in the Cathedral Church of Salisbury there is a greater and a lâ—ss distinguished and known by this difference of Major Minor pars Altaris And in some Diocesses they are settled upon the Bishop and Archdeacon and made part of their Revenue for which the King hath Tenths and Subsidies The Cathedral or the Mother-Church of Worcester was Anciently and before the dissolution a Priory and among other Revenues had these Pentecostalia or Whitson-farthings yearly paid sub nomine Oblationum or Spiritual Profits tempore Pentecostes After the Dissolution when King H. 8. about the three and thirtieth year of his Reign new-founded and reendo'wd the said Church he restored these Pentecostalia after he had hâ—ld them about a year in his own hand to the said Church which as it is reported the Dean and Prebendaries thereof receive at this day and as appears by the Letters Patent Henricus Octavus c. Sciatis quod Nos de gratia nostra speciali ac ex certa scientia ac mero motu nostris dedimus concedimus ac per praesentes damus concedimus Decano Capitulo Ecclesiae Cathedralis Christi beatae Maria Virginis Wigorn. omnes illas Oblationes Obventiones sive Spiritualia proficua vulgariter vocat Whitson farthings annuatim collect sâ—ve recepta de diversis Viliatis in Comitat. nostris Wigorn. Warwic 〈◊〉 infra Archidiaconatum Wigorn
s. 6 d. to the Scribe for Registring the same or else the said Scribe to be at his liberty to refuse the said 2 s. 6 d. and to have for writing every ten Lines of the same Testament whereof every Line to contain ten inches one penny If the Executor desire that the Testament in paper may be transcribed in parchment he must agree with the party for the Transcribing but the Ordinary c. can take nothing for that nor for the Examination of the Transcript with the Original but only 2 s. 6 d. for the whole duty belonging to him Where the Goods of the deceased do not exceed five pound the Ordinary c. shall take nothing and the Scribe to have only for writing of the Probat six pence so the said Testament be exhibited in writing with Wax thereunto affixed ready to be sealed Where the Goods of the deceased do amount to above the value of five pound and do not exceed the sum of forty pound there shall be taken for the whole but 3 s. 6 d. whereof to the Ordinary c. 2 s. 6 d. and 12 d. to the Scribe for Registring the same Where by Custome less hath been taken in any of the Cases aforesaid there less is to be taken And where any person requires a Copy or Copies of the Testament so proved or Inventory so made the Ordinary c. shall take for the Search and making of the Copy of the Testament or Inventory if the Goods exceed not five pound six pence and if the Goods exceed five pound and exceed not forty pounds twelve pence And if the Goods exceed forty pounds then two shillings six pence or to take for every Ten lines thereof of the proportion before rehearsed a penny And when the party dies Intestate the Ordinary may dispose somewhat in pious uses notwithstanding the Act of 31 Ed. 3. but with these Cautions 1 That it be after the Administration granted and Inventory made so as the state of the Intestate may be known and thereby the sum may appear to be competent 2 The Administrator must be called to it 3 The use must be publick and godly 4 It must be expressed in particular And 5 There must be a Decree made of it and entred of Record 7. The Court of Audience Curia Audientiae Cantuariensis The Lord Coke touching the Jurisdiction of Courts taking notice of this of the Audience among other of the Ecclesiastical Courts says That this Court is kept by the Archbishop in his Palace and meddleth not with any matter between party and party of any contentious Jurisdiction but dealeth with matters pro forma and Confirmations of Bishops Elections Consecrations and the like and with matters of voluntary Jurisdiction as the granting of the Guardianship of the Spiritualties Sede vacante of Bishops Admissions and Institutions to Benefices dispensing with Banns of Matrimony and such like This Court did belong to the Archbishop of Canterbury and was in point of Authority equal with but in point of Dignity and Antiquity inferiour to the Court of Arches It seems that Anciently the Archbishop of Canterbury did hear divers Causes of Ecclesiastical cognizance Extra-judicially and at home in his own Palace wherein before he would come to any final determination his usage was to commit the discussion thereof to certain persons learned in the Laws Civil and Canon who thereupon were styled his Auditors whence in process of time it center'd in one particular person styled Causarum Negotiorumque Audientiae Cantuariensis Auditor seu Officialis And from hence the Original of this Court is properly derived With this office of the Auditor the Chancery of the Archbishop is said to have been heretofore commonly joyned not controverting any matters of contentious Jurisdiction in any decisions of Causes between Plaintiff and Defendant but such only as were Voluntariae Jurisdictionis ex Officio touching such things only as are fore-specified and such like By the Provincial Constitutions it is Ordained That for the ease of the People they may at times convenient to be assigned by the Bishop have access to their Diocesan Et quod Praelati persâ—â— liter Audiant quaerelas in his Cathedral or next Parochial Church vel in aliqua Maneriorum suorum Capella si talis fuerit Lindw de Offic. Jud. Ord. cap. Statuimus in gloss verb. in Publico It seems not altogether improbable but that from the practice hereof this Court of Audience anciently had its Original as aforesaid And although it be not now in use as heretofore yet considering the Subject-matter it only took cognizance of it was a good Expedient to prevent many Suits at Law in Foro Contentioso 8. Faculty or Court of Faculties in the sense here meant and intended must not be understood according to its original and genuine signification but as a term of Art according to a limited construction restrained under that peculiar notion and particular understanding which the Law hath of it in reference to a branch of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction And so it is understood and commonly used for that Priviledge or especial Power which is legally granted to a man by License favour indulgence and dispensation to have or do that which otherwise by the Canon Law he could not as to eat Flesh upon days prohibited to Marry without Banns first published to hold Two or more Ecclesiastical Benefices incompatible the Son to succeed the Father in his Benefice and such like A Faculty granted to one who is not Incumbent to take a void Benefice is void But a Faculty to one who is Incumbent of a Benefice to retain the same is good It is called Faculties in the Statute of 28 H. 8. cap. 16. Sir Ed. Coke makes mention of the Court of Faculties although it holds no Plea of Controversie It belongs to the Archbishop of Canterbury and his chief Officer thereof is called Magister ad Facultates whose power is to grant Dispensations to the ends and purposes aforesaid and so may every Diocesan as to that of Marriage and eating of Flesh on days prohibited Faculty according to Sir Ed. Coke in the place fore-cited signifies a Dispensation so that Facultates in this sense Dispensationes Indulta are Synonyma Who likewise there says that this Authority was raised and given to the Archbishop of Canterbury by the Statute of 25 H. 8. c. 21. whereby Authority is given to the said Archbishop and his Successors to grant Dispensations Faculties c. by himself or his sufficient and substantial Commissary or Deputy for any such matters commonly called the Master of the Faculties and of all such matters as whereof heretofore such Dispensations Faculties c. then had been accustomed to be had at the See of Rome or by Authority thereof For by the Stat. of 28 H. 8. c. 16. it appears the Bishop of Rome did grant Faculties and Dispensations to the Kings Subjects as Pluralities Unions Trialities Appropriations Commendams Exemptions
as Patron claiming the Patronage to himself for such a Collation doth amount to a Presentation and here are two or three Collations pleaded which should put the Queen out of possesion although she shall not be bound by the First during the life of the first Incumbent Vid. Br. Quare Impedit 31. upon the abridging of the Case of 47 E. 3. 4. That two Presentments the one after the other shall put the King out of possession and put him to his Writ of Right of Advowson which Anderson denied And it was holden by the whole Court here is not any Presentation and then no possession gained by the Collations and although the Bishop doth Collate as Patron and not as Ordinary yet it is but a Collation And there is a great difference betwixt Collation and Presentation for Collation is a giving of the Church to the Parson but Presentation is a giving or offering of the Parson to the Church and that makes a Plenarty but not a Collation 3. The Collation of the Ordinary for Lapse is in Right of the Patron and will serve him for a Possession in a Darrein Presentment as appears by Colt and Glover's Case against the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield where it is said That the Ordinary or he that presents by Lapse is a kind of Attorney made by Law to do that for the Patron which it is supposed he would do himself if there were not some lett and thefore the Collation by Lapse is in right of the Patron and for his turn 24 E. 3. 26. And he shall lay it as his possession for an Assize of Darrein Presentment 5 H. 7. 43. It seems also by Gawdy's Case against the Archbishop of Canterbury and others That although a Bishop Collate wrongfully yet this makes such a Plenarty as shall barr the Lapse of the Metropolitan and the King And this Collation by Lapse is an act and office of Trust reposed by Law in the Ordinary Metropolitan and King the Title of Lapse being rather an Administration than an Interest as in Colt's Case aforesaid which Title of Collating by Lapse may be prevented by bringing a Quare Impedit against the Bishop Also where and in what Cases the bringing of that Writ against the Bishop shall or shall not prevent such Collation appears in the Case of Brickhead against the Archbishop of York as Reported by Sir Hen. Hobart Chief Justice 4. Presentation is the Nomination of a Clerk to the Ordinary to be Admitted and Instituted by him to a Benefice void and the same being in Writing is nothing but a Letter Missive to the Bishop or Ordinary to exhibite to him a Clerk to have the Benefice voided the Formal force hereof resteth in these words viz. Praesento vobis Clericum meum Thus Presentation properly so called is the act of a Patron offering his Clerk to the Bishop to be Instituted in a Benefice of his Gift It is where a man hath a Right to give any Benefice Spiritual and presents the person to the Bishop to whom he gives it and makes an Instrument in writing to the Bishop in his favour and in case there be divers Coheirs and they not according in the Presentation that which is made by the eldest of the Coheirs shall be first Admitted but if it be by Joyntenants or Tenants in Common and they accord not within Six months the Bishop shall present by Lapse By the Statute of 13 Eliz. cap. 12. a Presentation of an Infant to a Benefice is void And although a Presentation being but the Commendation of a fit person by the Patron to the Bishop or Ordinary to be Admitted and Instituted into a Benefice may be done either by word alone or by a Letter or other writing yet the Grant of a next Avoidance is not good without Deed But a Presentation being no other than a Commendation of a Clerk to the Ordinary as aforesaid and only a thing concerning an Advowson without passing any interest of the Inheritance of the Advowson may be done by word only upon which ground it was Resolved by the whole Court That the Kings Presentation unto an Advowson Appendant to a Mannor parcel of his Dutchy under the Great Seal of England without the Seal of the Dutchy was well made and good Yea and for the same Reason for that a Presentation is but a Commendation and toucheth not the Inheritance was the Kings Presentation to the Deanary of Norwich held good albeit in the said Presentation he mistook and mis-recited the Name of the Foundation of the Deanary 5. A. seized of an Advowson in Fee Grants Praesentationem to B quandocunque quomodocunque Ecclesia vacare contigerit pro unica vice tantum in the Grant there was further this Clause viz. Insuper voluit concessit That the Grant should remain in force quousque Clericus habilis idoneus shall by his Presentation be Admitted Instituted and Inducted Afterwards A. grants away the Advowson in Fee unto S. The Church becomes void S. Presents The Church becomes void again S. Presents G. upon a Disturbance of M. the Presentee of B. the First Grantee a Quare Impedit is brought The Question was Whether B. the First Grantee not Presenting upon the First Avoidance had lost the benefit of his Grant In this Case it was Adjudged by the whole Court That although A. the Grantor grants Donationem Praesentaâ—ionem quandocunque Ecclesia vacare contigerit pro unica vice tantum yet B. ought to have taken the first Presentation that happened and hath not Election to take any turn other than the First when the Church first became void and by his neglect in not Presenting then had lost the benefit of his Grant and the subsequent words in the Grant are but only an Explanation of the words precedent and relate to the next Avoidance 6. The Right of Presentation is a Temporal thing and a Temporal Inheritance and therefore belongeth to the Kings Temporal Laws to determine as also to make Laws who shall Present after Six months as well as before so as the Title of Examination of Ability or Nonability be not thereby taken from the Ordinary The Law is the same touching Avoidances for it shall be judged by the Kings Temporal Laws when and whether the Church may be said to be void or not the cognizance whereof doth not belong to the Kings Ecclesiastical Laws and therefore where a Parson is made a Bishop or accepts another Benefice without License or Resigneth or be Deprived In these cases the Common Law would hold the Church void albeit there were any Ecclesiastical Law to the contrary And it is sufficient for the Ordinary's discharge if the Presentee be able by whomsoever he be Presented which Authority is acknowledged on all sides to have been ever inherent in the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction But as to the Right of Presentation it self to determine who ought to Present and who
for the defence of the True Faith against those Hereticks who belched out their Blasphemies against the Holy Trinity and the Humane Nature of our Saviour the First whereof was at Nice another after that at Constantinople consisting of a hundred and fifty Bishops the Third at Ephesus of two hundred Bishops the Fourth at Chalcedon where many hundreds of Bishops were present and they all with an unanimous Consent confirmed all those Decrees which were made in the Nicene Council These Four Synods says the said Canon are so to be observed by the Church of Christ ut Quatuor Christi Codices There were many other Synods about the same time but these Four were of the best Authority At Jerusalem in the First Century the Apostles Elders and Brethren held a Council against some Pharisees touching Circumcision in the Fourth year of the Reign of the Emperour Claudius The Apostles celebrated also certain Councils for the substituting of Matthias in the place of Judas Act. 1. For the Election of Seven Deacons Act. 6. For not pressing the Ceremonial Law Act. 15. 11 For the toleration of some Legal Observations only for a time Act. 21. 18. To these some will have to be added a Meeting by the Apostles wherein was composed the Apostles Creed Also another Assembly of the Apostles which did obtrude to the Church 85 Canons under the notion of the Apostles Authority concerning which there are various Controversies In this Century there were also Two Synods summoned in Asia for the Reformation of the Churches and Consecration of Bishops at which John the Evangelist was present Euseb lib. 3. cap. 20. At Ancyra in Galatia in the Second Century was Assembled a Synod of divers Bishops wherein the Figments of Montanus were confuted In this Synod Montanus was Excommunicated and his Heresie condemned Euseb lib. 5. cap. 14. In this Century viz. An. 195. Six several Synods were held about the Observation of Easter viz. At Rome in Victors time at Caesarea in Palestina at Pontus in France where Irenaeus was chief in Ostroena and at Ephesus In all which Synods it is observed That the Bishop of Rome had no more Authority than the other Bishops Euseb lib. 5. cap. 23. In the Third Century there were Eight or Nine Synods of Remark viz. At Bastra where Beryllus was confuted by Origen at Rome in the time of Fabianus where the Schism of Novatus was removed another at Rome in the time of Cornelius wherein Novatus the Heretick was condemned at Antioch where Novatus was condemned again at Carthage which erred about the Re-baptizing of Hereticks at Iconium for receiving of Hereticks after Repentance at Antioch again where Samosatenus was condemned this was about the Twelfth year of Galienus Another at the same place under Aurelianus where he was condemned again and deprived of his Church And at Sinuessa consisting of 300 Bishops where Marcellinus Bishop of Rome was condemned for denying Christ and sacrificing to Idols Tom. 1. Concil At Ancyra in the Fourth Century about the year 308 were assembled Bishops of divers Provinces to constitute a form of Ecclesiastical Discipline according to which they who had Sacrificed to Idols in time of Persecution were to be received again upon their Repentance In this Council also it was Ordained That Chorepiscopi that is countrey-Countrey-Bishops or Vicarii Episcoporum should abstain from Ordination of Elders and Deacons and from usurping of dominion over the Preaching Elders who were in Cities This Council was subscribed by Eighteen Bishops At Nicea in Bithynia Assembled by the Authority of Constantine the Great a General Council consisting of 318 Bishops The exact time when it began Historians do not agree some conceive it was A. D. 325. So Hillar Socort l. 2. c. 29. Others 359. So Baron N. 27. Others 330. and others referr the year to 333. But Eusebius computeth it to be in the Twentieth year of Constantines Reign It was also in the time of Julius the First and Silvester Popes Three things especially are reported to be condemned by this Famous Council 1. The Arrian Heresie Blasphemously denying to Son to be Co-eternal and Co-essential with the Father 2. The dissent of the Eastern from the Western Christians about the celebration of the Passover in a manner different from the Jewish Custome and it was concluded in this Council That the Feast of Easter should be kept on the Lords Day and not on the Fourteenth day of the First Month of the Jews called Nisan 3. The Schismatical dissentions of the Melitians and Novatians In this Council the Emperour burnt all the Accusations which the Bishops brought against each other as unworthy to be seen Of this Council it is anciently Recorded That Constantinus Imperator congregavit in Nicaea Civitate 318. Episcopos ex omnibus Nationibus ad Confirmandum fidem Catholicam Ita in Tertio Can. AElfrici ad Wulfin Episcop At Tyrus in the Fourth Century was conven'd a National Council by Constantine the Emperour in the Thirtieth year of his Reign wherein were 60 Bishops from Egypt Lybia Asia and Europe the major part whereof were Arrians who charging Athanasius with false Accusations deposed him in his absence whose Deposition Arsenias subscribed with the same hand which the Arrians alledged was cut off by Athanasius At Gangra in Paphlagonia about the year 324. were assembled about Sixteen Fathers in which Council were damned the heretical Opinions of Eustathius who admiring the Monastick life or favouring the heresie of Eucratitae and the Manichaeans spake against Marriage and eating of Flesh and damned the publick Congregations for the Service of God in Temples saying a man could not be saved unless he forsook all his Possessions About this time there was a Council at Antiochia wherein the Arrians deposed Eustatius As also a Council at Arles wherein Cecilianus was absolved from the Accusation of the Donatists At Eliberis in Spain in the time of Constantines Reign were assembled 19 Bishops and 36 Presbyters Among the 81 Canons made in this Synod it was Ordained in the 36 Canon That nothing that is worshipped should be Pictured on a Wall and that in Private Houses no Idols should be found At Carthage the First Council there wherein St. Cyprian with the Advice of many other Bishops of Numidia Lybia and other parts of Africa Ordained those who were Baptized by Hereticks to be Rebaptized was not held under the Reign of Constantine for that St. Cyprian was Martyred in Valexians daies the Eighth Persecuting Emperour but the first Council of Carthage held in Constantines daies was that wherein the Donatists condemned Cecilianus Bishop of Carthage whose innocency was made afterwards to appear At Antioch the First Council there was held by Arrians under the Reign of Constantinus Son of Constantine in the year 340 or 344. This being one of the Councils which either determine Heretical Opinions or raise up Schisms and Troubles to
the dispersing of the Christian Flock doth not undeservedly pass under the name or notion of one of the Rejected Councils To this Assembly resorted 90 Bishops under pretence of Dedicating the Church of Antioch built by Constantine when in truth their principal design was to eject Athanasius out of his Chair and to subvert that Systeme of Faith which was set down in the Nicene Council This Council of Antioch is to be distinguish'd from Five others which Bellarmine reckons Longus also doth name this and mentions other Councils of Antioch But this Council is referr'd to the time of Constantinus and Julius the First Athanasius being restored from Banishment by Constantine the Son of Constantine the Great the Arrians declare it to be unlawful because the same Authority which did eject must restore This matter therefore being referr'd to Pope Julius he Summons the Synod to appear at Rome But the Eusebians chief of the Hereticks that they might avoid this did without much difficulty seduce Constantius to be at the Consecration of the Magnificent Temple built by Constantine the Great at Antioch where were met about 90 Bishops as aforesaid 30 whereof being Arrians the favour and Authority of the Emperour against the double Suffrages of the Orthodox procured the condemning of Restored Athanasius It is said of this Council That they did set forth a Form of Belief so intermixed with Truth and Error that he which is heedful lest he be deceived in his greatest warlness can scarcely be safe for by the omission of what might establish the Truth they weaken that which they undertake to maintain To this Council probably may be referr'd Two other Councils which some report to have been held also at Antioch about the year 348. the former whereof was occasioned by the favour which Julius Bishop of Rome shewed to Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria and other Bishops In the other the Arrians did set forth a new Sum of their Faith which being sent to the Bishops of Italy was refused by them adhering to that of the Nicene Council At Sardis in Illyricum in the year 351. by the Command of Constantius and his Brother Constans a great National Council was Assembled consisting of 376 Bishops whereof Three hundred were from the West and Seventy six from the East from Thirty five Provinces in all The Three hundred Western Bishops confirmed the Nicene Creed to this end That Athanasius who was Banished Rome for the space of Three years should be restored to his Place at Alexandria but the other Seventy six Arrians meeting at Philippolis confirmed Arrianism under the Title of the Council of Sardis In this Council by reason of the Arrian Faction and from thence forward were added different Affections to different Opinions In this Council which is commonly called an Appendix to the First Nicene Council were ratified 21 Canons under Pope Julius At Sirmium in Illyria in the year 356. by Command of the Emperour Constantius a Council was held where were present besides Eastern Three hundred Western Bishops and upwards for the hearing and deciding the Cause of Photius who complained to the Emperour that he was unjustly condemned at the Synod of Sardis although he had preached that Christ was meer man and inferiour to his Mother This Council at Sirmium so groaned under the Arrian Tyranny of Constantius that the Supremacy and Presidentship of Pope Liberius dared not to appear Photius Bishop of Sirmium having renewed the Heresies of Sabellius and Samosatenus Of this Council saith Longus there is nothing extant besides Three Forms of Belief which are found in Binius In this Synod there was a hot Dispute between Basilius Bishop of Ancyra an Arrian Heretick and the said Photius a Sabellian Heretick At Millain in the year 355. at the instance of the Arrians a Council consisting of Three hundred of the Occidental Bishops at the command of Constantius was Assembled who after that the Emperour Constans was slain by Magnentius had the whole Sovereignty both of the East and West in his hands This Council was conven'd partly for ratification of the Sentence pronounced against Athanasius at Tyrus and partly for subversion of the Nicene Faith but prevailed in neither In this Council the Emperour himself was President Liberius being Pope I saith the Emperour in this Council am an Accuser of Athanasius The Western Catholick Bishops there present for there were few Eastern promised to consent to the Arrians if they would first subscribe to the Nicene Creed But Valence and Vrsacius the chief Leaders of that Faction withstood them Then followed the degrading of the Bishops and the corrupt Ecclesiastical determination This was effected especially that they might allure Liberius Bishop of Rome either by Gifts or Threats to their way who is reported thus Heroically to have Answered the Emperour who had judg'd him to be Banished to Thrace and offered him the charge of his Journey viz. Thou hast robbed the Churches of the Earth and now offerest to me Condemned an Indigent an Alms Go first and become a Christian thy self At Ariminum in Italy about the year 363. was held a National Council consisting of more than Four hundred Western Bishops under the Emperour Constantius in the 22 d year of his Reign at the motion of the Arrians to whose Opinions the said Emperour was flexible enough but the major part of the said Bishops rejecting the motions made in favour of the Arrian Error touching the Son of God adhered closely to the Nicene Faith This Ariminum is it seems Famous for Two Councils the one Orthodox and lawfully called which is that aforementioned The other Heretical and Tyrannical craftily called by the Arrians under the notion of the Council held at Ariminum that this False one might extinguish the True one whereof the greater part determined the Nicene Creed punctually to be observed and the Sons equality with the Father in Essence to be asserted The Decrees of the Synod at Sirmium to be rejected and Vrsacius and Valence with the Arrians their Followers to be Excommunicated At Seleucia in Isauria which lies between Lycania and Cilcia whence Paul and Barnabas sailed to Cyprus Act. 13. 4. was a Council of 160 Oriental Bishops held the same year wherein the said National Council of Ariminum was held viz. An. 363. The business of this Council procured as the former by the Arrians was much prevented by a Contest arising touching precedency of Debates as whether the matter of Faith or the Lives of such as were to be accused should first fall under Examination At this time there being Convened at Ariminum 600 Bishops according to Bellarmine out of the Chron. of Jerome of which the Eastern Heterodox being overpowr'd both in Number and Arguments by the Orthodox the Emperour Constantius removes them unto Seleucia in Isauria aforesaid Here the Acatians altogether reject Consubstantiality the Semi-Arrians admit it in their sense In this diffention
Bruis and Arnaldus of Brixia the Disciple of Peter Abullard who rejected Pedobaptism Church-buildings and the Adoration of the Cross It proclaimed these Lay-persons to be Sacrilegious and incurr the danger of eternal damnation who receive Tithes and deprived Usurers of Christian Burial and Cursed them to Hell The Third Lateran Council was under Frederick the First and Alexander the Third by an assembly of 30 Bishops who made up the difference between this Alexander and one Octavianus and his Successors Gindon and John a German taking up the quarrel with him which Dissentions divided Europe into parties Also the Albigenses under the name of Cathari Publicans Paterini taking their Rise from the Waldenses were here condemned Lombard who affirmed that Christ according to his Manhood was nothing was Censured Ordinations made by Schismaticks wholly abrogated Private Oratories and Priests for Leprous persons appointed and the manner of Visitations by Archbishops Bishops and Deacons prescribed The Fourth Lateran Council was under Frederick the Second and Innocentius the Third with 400 Bishops and 80 other Fathers This Council rejected the Book of Joachimus the Abbot against P. Lombard established Transubstantiation Auricular Confession and the Papal Absolution of Subjects from their Allegiance It exacted an Oath from Secular Magistrates to expel Hereticks nominated by the Pope This Council by Indulgencies encouraged those that went with Crosses for recovery of the Holy Land under Godfrey of Bulloigne prohibited Plurality of Benefices and Sale of Reliques At Papia in the year 1160. the Emperour Frederick the First convened a Council occasioned by the difference between Alexander 3. and Victor the 4 th for the Popedom after the death of Adrian the Fourth In this Council Victor the Fourth was declared Pope Whereupon Alexander the Third convened a Council at Cleremont in which he Cursed the Emperour Pope Victor and their Adherents At Rome in the year 1180. a Council of One hundred and eighty Bishops was convened by the Popes Authority Their Consultations and Canons were touching the Form of Electing Popes for the future also touching Ecclesiastical Dignities and Discipline touching Excommunication Residence Continency Plurality Patronage Presentations Festivals Usurers Jews and Sarazens and the like At Rome in the year 1215. Pope Innocentius the Third Convened a General Council wherein the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was ratified This was another of the Lateran Councils At Lions Two Councils the First called by Frederick the Second and Innocentius the Fourth about the year 1244. In this Council the Emperour that deserved so well of the Christian Church against the Infidels was after Four Excommunications deposed by the Pope prohibiting that any should name him Emperour Being thus Deposed he defends his Right by his Gibilines against the Guelphes of the Papal party In this Council appears no other President than the Pope himself who with 140 Bishops and Abbots endeavoured under colour of recovering the Holy Land by the Fifths of the Church to redeem the East By this Council new Festivals were instituted for the Canonizing of Roman Saints The Seventeen Institutions ascribed to this Council are said to be rather Political and Polemical than Ecclesiastical and according to Bellarmine are to be found in the Sixth of the Decretals At Lions the other of these Two Councils was under Rodolphus the First at Haspurge procured by Gregory the Tenth consisting of at least Seven hundred Bishops In this Council was present Michael Paleologus the Greek Emperour Aquinas sent for to this Council dies in his way thither where Bonaventure after his being created Cardinal died also In this Council the Pope in behalf of the Holy Land requires a Subsidy the Tenth of all Ecclesiastical Rights for the space of Six years In this Council also it was ordered That there should be Bowing at the Name of JESVS There were 31 Constitutions or Canons made by this Council which though omitted by the Summulists may yet be found in the Sixth of the Decretals At Vienna in the year 1311. under Henry the Seventh Clement the Fifth being Pope a General Council of above Three hundred Bishops was convened In this Council was set forth a Book of Papal Decrees called Liber Clementiarum which was Ratified by this Council In this Council also it was that Corpus Christi Day was Ordained to be a Festival and the Order of Templers to be quite abolished for the Jerusalem-Expedition being strongly urged in this Council the Templers are removed out of the way for murdering of the Abissins Ambassador and other Impieties and Heresies Whether Trithemius did hit the mark or not it matters not Notorious it is That the Templers were very Rich but if that were a sufficient pretence for Heresie and Expulsion as some conceive then there would be no such thing as the Church of Rome at least not Orthodox In this Council the Clergy are permitted to take an Oath of Allegiance not of Subjection to Lay-Magistrates also Peter John the Dulcimists the Fratricelli the Begwards and Begwins together with the Lollards were condemned Peter John was condemned for denying the Soul to be the Form of Man a new piece of Heresie against Natural Philosophy The Constitutions of this Council under the name of Clementine are extant in 5 Books for a Supplement of the Canon Law in which is that Famous Decree of Constituting Professors to be maintained by a competent Stipend at the Court of Rome at the Vniversities of Paris Oxford Bononia and Salamanca for the instructing in Hebrew Arabick and Chaldee Languages whereby the Jews and Mahumetans might the more easily be converted to the Faith The Fifth Lateran Council in the year 1311. under Maximilian the Emperour Pope Julius 2. President thereof It is supposed this Council was called for disannulling another at Pisa where some Cardinals were met against the Pope There were convened at this Council 114 Bishops and it had Twelve Sessions Five whereof were under Julius the other Seven were finished by Leo the Tenth Suarez Cajetan and Navarr profess this to be a rejected Council The pragmatical Decree made at the Council of Basil in defence of Ecclesiastical Liberty against Popish Usurpations is here discussed and exploded The Immortality of the Soul is here also defended concerning which many at that time doubted it others wantonly disputed it and others heretically denied it By this Council a restraint is laid on such as in Preaching wrest the Scriptures at their pleasure to uphold and disperse some strange Opinions which restraint extended also to the impression of Books not Orthodox nor Licensed as such At Pisa in the year 1409. was as some call it a General Council consisting of Twenty three Cardinals Three Patriarchs Three hundred Archbishops and Bishops Twenty eight Governours of Monasterics and a very great number of Divines and Ambassadours of Princes The great Dissention between Benedict the Twelfth and Gregory the Thirteenth was the occasion of this
West-Saxons in the borders of Worcester and Herefordshire under an Oak thereby tacitly reproving the Idolatry of the Pagan Britains who acted their Superstitions under an Oak as the Learned Sr. H. Spelman observes In the Tenth Century King Edward the Elder Son of King Alfred called a Synod at Intingford where he confirmed the same Ecclesiastical Constitutions which King Alured had made before Many Councils were Conven'd during the Reign of King Athelstan as at Exiter Feversham Thunderfield London and at Great Lea which last is of most account in regard of the Laws therein made specially that concerning the payment of Tithes the which you may peruse in the Learned Sr. H. Spelm. Concil p. 405. During the Reign of King Edgar Hoel Dha held a National Council for all Wales at Tyquin which was wholly in favour of the Clergy this Council was held when Dunst in was Archbishop of Canterbury in whose time there were Two other Councils conven'd the one at Cartlage in Cambridgshire the other at Caln in Wiltshire After this William the Conqueror conven'd a Council of his Bishops at Winchester wherein himself was personally present with two Cardinals sent from Rome in this Council Stigand Archbishop of Canterbury was deposed and Lâ—â—frank a Lombard substituted in his room During the Reign of King Henry the First Anselm Archbishop of Canterbury summoned a Council at Westminster which Excommunicated all Married Priests half the Clergy at that time being Married or the Sons of Married Priests During the Reign of King Stephen Albericus Bishop of Hostia sent by Pope Innocent into England conven'd a Synod at Westminster wherein it was concluded That no Priest c. should have a Wife or a Woman in his house on pain of being sent to Hell Also that their Transubstantiated God should dwell but Eight days in the Box for fear of being Worm-eaten or moulded Under the Reign of King Henry the Second who disclaimed the Popes authority refused to pay Peter-pence and interdicted all Appeals to Rome a Synod was called at Westminster wherein was a great Contest between the two Archbishops of Canterbury and York for Precedency York appeals to Rome the Pope interposes and to end old Divisions makes a new distinction entituling York Primate of England and Canterbury Primate of all England Under the Reign of King Henry the Third a Council was held at Oxford under Stephen Langton Archbishop of Canterbury wherein many Constitutions were made as against Excess of demands for Procurations in Visitations against Pluralities Non-Residence and other abuses of the Clergy In the Ninth year of King Edward the First John Peckham Archbishop of Canterbury held a Council at Lambeth with his Suffragans some account whereof Walsingham gives us in these words viz. Frater Johannes Peckham Cantuariensis Archiepiscopus ne nihil fecisse videretur convocat Concilium apud Lambeth in quo non Evangelii Regni Dei praedicationem imposuit sed Constitutiones Othonis Ottobonis quondam Legatorum in Anglia innovans jussit eas ab omnibus servari c. Walsing in Ed. 1. He then made Sixteen Ecclesiastical Laws which are inserted among the Provincial Constitutions After this he summoned another Council of his Clergy at Reading wherein he propounded the drawing of all Causes concerning Advowsons to the Ecclesiastical Courts and to cut off all Prohibitions from the Temporal Courts in Personal Causes but upon the Kings express Command to desist from it this Council was dissolved Parker de Antiq. Eccles Anglic. fo 205. An 1290. During the Reign of King Henry the Fourth Thomas Arundel Archbishop of Canterbury conven'd a Synod at St. Pauls Church Lond. wherein the King joyned with them in punishing all Opposers of the Religion received Trussel de vita H. 4. Under King Henry the Fifth an Universal Synod of all the Bishops and Clergy was called at London where it was determined That the day of St. George and also of St. Dunstan should be a double Feast in holy Church In the same Kings Reign was a Convocation held at London conven'd by Henry Chichley Archbishop of Canterbury wherein were severe Constitutions made against the Lollards In the Reign of King Henry the Seventh a Synod was held at London by John Morton Archbishop of Canterbury to redress the Excess of the London Clergy in Apparel and frequenting of Taverns We had almost omitted the Synod in England An. 1391. under the Reign of King Richard the Second Simon Sudbury then Archbishop of Canterbury in which Synod it was Ordain'd That whosoever Appealed to Rome besides Excommunication should lose all his Goods and be Imprisoned during his Life vid. Hist of the Church of Great Britain p. 117. A Modern and Ingenious yet unfortunate Author well observes a Fourfold difference or distinction of Synods or Convocations in this Realm in reference to the several manners of their Meeting and degrees of their Power The First he states in point of Time before the Conquest The Second since the Conquest and before the Statute of Praemunire The Third after that Statute but before another made in the Reign of King H. 8. The Fourth after the 25th of the said King 1 Before the Conquest the Popes power prevailed not over the Kings of England who were then ever present Personally or Virtually at all Councils wherein matters both of Church and State were debated and concluded Communi consensu tam Cleri quam Populi Episcoporum Procerum Comitum nec non omnium Sapientum Seniorum populorumque totius Regni 2 After the Conquest but before the Statute of Praemunire the Archbishops used upon all emergent Cases toties quoties at their own discretions to assemble the Clergy of their respective Provinces where they pleased continuing and dissolving them at their pleasure which they then did without any leave from the King whose Canons and Constitutions without any further Ratifification were in that Age obligatory to all subjected to their Jurisdiction Such it seems were all the Synods from Lanfranck to Thomas Arundel Archbishop of Canterbury in which Arundels time the Statute of Praemunire was Enacted 3 After which Statute which much restrained the Papal power and subjected it to the Laws of the Land the Archbishops called no more Convocations by their sole and absolute Command but at the pleasure of the King by whose Writ and Precept only they were now and henceforth Summoned Of this Third sort of Convocations were all those kept by and from Thomas Arundel unto Thomas Cranmer or from the 16th of R. 2. unto the 25th of King H. 8. These Convocations also did make Canons as in Lindwoods Constitutions which were Obligatory although confirmed by no other Authority than what was meerly Synodical 4 The last sort of Convocations since the said Statute called the 25th of King H. 8. That none of the Clergy should presume to attempt alledge claim or put in ure any Constitutions or Ordinances Provincial or Synodals or any â—â—her Canons Constitutions or Ordinances Provincial by
Provisions Appeals to Rome holding Plea of Spiritual things thence arising Excommunications by his Bulls and the like were no other than Usurpations and Encroachments on the Dignity and Prerogative Royal. 14. In the Reign of King H. 8. An. 1539. the Abbots of Colchester Reading and Glastenbury were condemned and executed under colour so the Author expresses it of denying the Kings Supremacy and their rich Abbies seized on as Confiscations to the use of the King But when the Act of Supremacy came to be debated in the time of Queen Elizabeth it seemed a thing strange in Nature and Polity That a Woman should be declared to be the Supream Head on Earth of the Church of England but the Reformed party not so much contending about Words and Phrases as aiming to oust the Pope of all Authority within these Dominions fixed the Supream power over all Persons and Estates of what rank soever in the Crown Imperial not by the Name of Supream Head but tantamount of the Supream Governess In Queen Mary 's time there was an Act of Parliament made declaring That the Regal power was in the Queens Majesty as fully as it had been in any of her Predecessors In the body whereof it is expressed and declared That the Law of the Realm is and ever hath been and ought to be understood That the Kingly or Regal Office of the Realm and alâ— Dignities Prerogatives Royal Power Preheminences Priviledges Authorities and Jurisdictions thereunto annexed united or belonging being invested either in Male or Female are be and ought to be as fully wholly absolutely and entirely deemed adjudged accepted invested and taken in the one as in the other So that whatsoever Statute or Law doth limit or appoint that the King of this Realm may or shall have execute and do any thing as King c. the same the Queen being Supream Governess Possessor and Inheritor to the Imperial Crown of this Realm may by the same power have and execute to alâ— intents constructions and purposes without doubt ambiguity question or scruple any Custome use or any other thing to the contrary notwithstanding By the tenor of which Act made in Queen Mary 's Reign is granted to Queen Elizabeth as much Authority in all the Church-Concernments as had been eâ—ercised and enjoyed by King H. 8. and King Ed. 6. according to any Act or Acts of Parliament in their several times Which Acts of Parliament as our learned Lawyers on these occasions have declared were not to be considered as Introductory of a new power which was not in the Crown before but only Declaratory of an old which naturally belonged to all Christian Princes and amongst others to the Kings and Queens of the Realm of England And whereas some Seditious persons had dispersed a rumour that by the Act for recognizing the Queens Supremacy there was something further ascribed unto the Queen her Heirs and Successors viz. a power of administring Divine Service in the Church which neither by any equity or true sense of the words could from thence be gathered she thereupon makes a Declaration to all her Subjects That nothing was or could be meant or intended by the said Act than was acknowledged to be due to King H. 8. and King Ed. 6. And further declared That she neither doth nor will challenge any other Authority by the same than was challenged and lately used by the said Two Kings and was of Ancient time due unto the Imperial Crown of this Realm that is under God to have the Sovereignty and Rule over all persons born within her Realms and Dominions of what estate either Ecclesiastical or Temporal soever they be so as no other Forreign Power shall or ought to have any Superiority over them Which Declaration published in the Queens Injunctions An. 1559. not giving that general satisfaction to that groundless Cavil as was expected and intended the Bishops and Clergy in their Convocation of the year 1562. by the Queens Authority and Consent declared more plainly viz. That they gave not to their Princess by vertue of the said Act or otherwise either the ministring of Gods Word or Sacraments but that only Prerogative which they saw to have been given always to all godly Princes in holy Scripture by God himself that is to say that they should Rule all Estates and Degrees committed to their charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal and restrain with the Civil Sword the stubborn and evil doers And lastly to conclude this tender point There is in the said Act for the better exercising and enjoying of the Jurisdiction thus recognized to the Crown an Oath as aforesaid for the acknowledgment and defence of this Supremacy not only in the Queen but also her Heirs and Successors Likewise a power given to the Queen her Heirs and Successors by Letters Patents under the Great Seal of England To Assign and Authorize c. as she and they shall think fit such Persons being natural born Subjects to exercise use and occupy under her and them all manner of Jurisdictions Priviledges and Preheminencies in any wise touching or concerning any Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction within the Realms of England and Ireland or any other her Highness Dominions or Countries and to visit reform repress order correct and amend all such Errors Heresies Schisms Abuses Offences Contempts and Enormities whatsoever which by any manner of Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Power Authority or Jurisdiction or can or may lawfully be reformed ordered redressed corrected restrained or amended to the pleasure of Almighty God c. This was the Foundation of the High-Commission Court and from hence issued that Commission by which the Queens Ministers proceeded in their Visitation in the First year of her Majesties Reign CHAP. II. Of Archbishops 1. A Description of that Dignity here in England the Antiquity Precedency Priviledges and Style of the Archbishop of Canterbury with the Precincts of that See 2. The Antiquity Precedency and Style of the Archbishop of York with the Precincts of that See 3. What difference between Archbishop and Metropolitan and why called Metropolitan 4. Three Archbishops in England and Wales Anciently 5. The vicissitudes of the Christian Religion Anciently in this Island of Great Britain 6. How the Third Archbishop came to be lost 7. The great Antiquity of an Archbishop in London 8. The Original of the Style Primate and Metropolitan 9. What the difference Anciently between the Two Archbishopricks of Canterbury and York certain Priviledges of the latter 10. Whether an Archbishop may call Cases to his own cognizance nolente Ordinario 11. In what Case the Clerk is to be Instituted by the Archbishop where the Inferiour Ordinary hath right to Collate Also his power of Dispensations 12. A Case at Common Law relating to the Archbish Jurisdiction 13. Certain special Priviledges of the Archbishop of Canterbury 1. ARCHBISHOP ab Archos Princeps Episcopus Superintendens is that Spiritual person
which in the days of King Lucius was an Archbishoprick as aforesaid till St. Augustine in the year 598 took on him the Title of Archbishop of England setling his See at Canterbury 8. Upon the abrogating of the Popes power in England by King H. 8. in the Seventh year of his Reign it was concluded that the Archbishop of Canterbury should no more be styled the Popes Legate but Primate and Metropolitan of all England at which time Tho. Cranmer Fellow of Jesus-Colledge in Cambridge who pronounced the Divorce from Queen Katharine of Spain upon his advice given the King to leave the Court of Rome and to require the Opinions of Learned Divines being then in Germany procured such favour with the King that he caused him to be elected to this See of Canterbury and was afterwards with the then Bishop of Duresme made Tutor to King Edward the Sixth 9. The Archbishop of Canterbury was supposed to have had a concurrent Jurisdiction in the inferiour Diocesses within his Province which is not denied in the case of Dr. James only it is there said That was not as he was Archbishop but as he was Legatus Natus to the Pope as indeed so hâ— was before the tâ—me of King H. 8. as aforesaid by whom that Power together with the Pope was abrogated and so it ceased which the Archbishop of York never had nor ever claimed as appears in the forecited Case where it is further said That when there is a Controversie between the Archbishop and a Bishop touching Jurisdiction or between other Spiritual Persons the King is the indifferent Arbitrator in all Jurisdictions as well Spiritual as Temporal and that is a right of his Crown to distribute to them that is to declare their Bounds Consonant to that which is asserted in a Case of Commendam in Colt and Glovers Case against the Bishop of Coventry and Lichâ—ield where it is declared by the Lord Hobart Chief Justice That the King hath an immediate personal originary inherent Power which he executes or may execute Authoritate Regia Suprema Ecclesiastica as King and Sovereign Governour of the Church of England which is one of those Flowers qui faciunt Coronam which makes the Royal Crown and Diadem in force and vertue The Archbishop of Canterbury as he is Primate over All England and Metropolitan hath a Supereminency and some power even over the Archbishop of York hath under the King power to summon him to a National Synod and Archiepiscopus Eboracensis venire debet cum Episcopis suis ad nutum ejusâ— ut ejus Canonicis dispositionibus Obediens existat Yet the Archbishop of York had anciently not only divers Bishopricks in the North of England under his Province but for a long time all the Bishopricks of Scotland until little more than 200 years since and until Pope Sixtus the Fourth An. 1470. created the Bishop of St. Andrews Archbishop and Metropolitan of all Scotland He was also Legatus Natus and had the Legantine Office and Authority annexed to that Archbishoprick he hath the Honour to Crown the Queen and to be her perpetual Chaplain Of the forementioned Diocesses of his Province the Bishop of Durham hath a peculiar Jurisdiction and in many things is wholly exempt from the Jurisdiction of the Archbishop of York who hath notwithstanding divers Priviledges within his Province which the Archbishop of Canterbury hath within his own Province 10. The Archbishop is the Ordinary of the whole Province yet it is clear That by the Canon Law he may not as Metropolitan exercise his Jurisdiction over the Subjects of his Suffragan Bishops but in certain Cases specially allowed in the Law whereof Hostiensis enumerates one and twenty The Jurisdiction of the Archbishop is opened sometimes by himself nolente Ordinario as in the Case of his Visitation and sometimes by the party in default of Justice in the Ordinary as by Appeal or Nullities Again it may sometimes be opened by the Ordinary himself without the party or Archbishop as where the Ordinary sends the Cause to the Archbishop for although the Canon Law restrains the Archbishop to call Causes from the Ordinary Nolente Ordinario save in the said 21 Cases yet the Law left it in the absolute power of the Ordinary to send the Cause to the Archbishop absolutely at his will without assigning any special reason and the Ordinary may consult with the Archbishop at his pleasure without limitation Notwithstanding which and albeit the Archbishop be Judge of the whole Province tamen Jurisdictio sua est signata non aperitur nisi ex causis Nor is the Subject hereby to be put to any such trouble as is a Grievance and therefore the Law provides that Neminem oportet exire de Provincia ad Provinciam vel de Civitate ad Civitatem nisi ad Relationem Judicis ita ut Actor forum Rei sequatur 11. If the Archbishop visit his Inferiour Bishop and Inhibit him during the Visitation if the Bishop hath a title to Collate to a Benefice within his Diocess by reason of Lapse yet he cannot Institute his Clerk but he ought to be presented to the Archbishop and he is to Institute him by reason that during the Inhibition his power of Jurisdiction is suspended It was a point on a special Verdict in the County of Lincoln and the Civilians who argued thereon seemed to agree therein but the Case was argued upon another point and that was not resolved Likewise by the Statute of 25 H. 8. c. 21. the Archbishop of Canterbury hath power to give Faculties and Dispensations whereby he can as to Plurality sufficiently now Dispense de jure as Anciently the Pope did in this Realm de facto before the making of that Statute whereby it is enacted That all Licenses and Dispensations not repugnant to the Law of God which heretofore were sued for in the Court of Rome should be hereafter granted by the Archbishop of Canterbury and his Successors 12. By the Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical Edit 1603. Can. 94. It is Ordained That no Dean of the Arches nor Official of the Archbishops Consistory shall originally Cite or Summon any person which dwelleth not within the particular Diocess or Peculiar of the said Archbishop c. without the License of the Diocesan first had and obtained in that behalf other than in such particular Cases only as are expresly excepted and reserved in and by the Statute of 23 H. 8. c. 9. on pain of suspension for three months In the Case of Lynche against Porter for a Prohibition upon the said Statute of 23 H. 8. c. 9. it was declared by the Civilians in Court That they used to Cite any Inhabitant of and in London to appear and make Answer in the Archbishop of Canterbury's high Court of Arches originally And Dr. Martyn said It had been so used for the space of 427 years before the making of the Statute and upon
complaint thereof made to the Pope the Answer was That any man might be Cited to the Arches out of any Diocess in England Also That the Archbishop may hold his Consistory in any Diocess within his Jurisdiction and Province That the Archbishop hath concurrent Jurisdiction in the Diocess of every Bishop as well as the Archdeacon and That the Archbishop of Canterbury prescribes to hold Plea of all persons in England But as to his power of having a Consistory in the Diocess of every Bishop this was in this Case denied but only where he was the Popes Legate whereof there were Three sorts 1. Legates à Latere and these were Cardinals which were sent à Latere from the Pope 2. A Legate born and these were the Archbishops of Canterbury York and Mentz c. 3. A Legate given and these have Authority by special Commission from the Pope Likewise in the Case of Jones against Boyer C. B it was also said by Dr. Martyn That the Archbishop hath Ordinary Jurisdiction in all the Diocesses of his Province and that this is the cause that he may Visit 13. The Archbishop of Canterbury Anciently had Primacy as well over all Ireland as England from whom the Irish Bishops received their Consecration for Ireland had no other Archbishop until the year 1152. For which reason it was declared in the time of the Two first Norman Kings That Canterbury was the Metropolitan Church of England Scotland and Ireland and the Isles adjacent the Archbishop of Canterbury was therefore sometimes styled a Patriarch and Orbis Britannici Pontifex insomuch that Matters recorded in Ecclesiastical Affairs did run thus viz. Anno Pontificatus Nostri primo secundo c. He was also Legatus Natus that is he had a perpetual Legantine power annext to his Archbishoprick nigh a thousand years since And at General Councils he had the Precedency of all other Archbishops abroad and at home he had some special Marks of Royalty as to be the Patron of a Bishoprick as he was of Rochester to coyn Mony to make Knights and to have the Wardships of all those who held Lands of him Jure Hominii although they held in Capite other â—ands of the King as was formerly hinted He is said to be Inthroned when he is invested in the Archbishoprick And by the Stat. of 25 H 8. he hath power to grant Licenses and Dispensations in all Cases heretofore sued for in the Court of Rome not repugnant to the Law of God or the Kings Prerogative As also to allow a Clerk to hold a Benefice in Commendam or in Trust to allow a Clerk rightly qualified to hold Two Benefices with Cure of Souls to allow a Beneficed Clerk for some certain causes to be non-Resident for some time and to Dispense in several other Cases prohibited by the Letters of the Canon Law Likewise the Archbishop of Canterbury Consecrates other Bishops confirms the Election of Bishops within his Province calls Provincial Synods according to the Kings Writ to him ever directed is chief Moderator in the Synods and Convocations he Viâ—its the whole Province appoints a Guardian of the Spiritualties during the vacancy of any Bishoprick within his Province whereby all the Episcopal Ecclesiastical Rights of that Diocess for that time belong to him all Ecclesiastical Jurisdictions as Visitations Institutions c. He may retain and qualifie Eight Chaplains which is more by Two than any Duke is allowed by Statute to do and hath power to hold divers Courts of Judicature for the decision of Controversies pertaining to Ecclesiastical Cognizance CHAP. III. Of Bishops and Ordinaries 1. Bishop Why so called Not above One to be in one Diocess 2. Why called Ordinary and what the Pallium Episcopale is 3. Bishopricks originally Donative Kings of England the Founders thereof 4. The manner of Election of Bishops their Confirmation and Consecration 5. Their Seals of Office in what cases they may use their own Seals 6. What follows upon Election to make them Bishops compleat the grant of their Temporalties 7. The Conge d'eslire and what follows thereupon 8. Bishopricks were Donative till the time of King John 9. What the Interest and Authority is in his several capacities 10. Episcopal Authority derived from the Crown 11. The Vse and Office of Suffragan Bishops 12. Whether a Bishop may give Institution out of his own proper Diocess and under other Seal than his own Seal of Office 13. Several things incident to a Bishop qua talis 14. Ordinary what properly he is and why so called 15. In what cases the Ordinaries Jurisdiction is not meerly Local 16. The Ordinaries power de jure Patronatûs 17. Whether the Ordinary may cite a man out of his own Diocess Also his Right ad Synodalia 18. The Ordinaries power of Visitation 19. The Dignity and true Precedency of the Bishops in England 20. Temporal Jurisdiction anciently exercised by Bishops in this Realm the Statute of 17 Car. 1. against it Repealed and they Restored to it by the Stat. of 13 Car. 2. as formerly 21. The Act made in the Reign of Ed. 6. concerning the Election of Bishops the Endeavours thereby to take away Episcopal Jurisdiction the Nomination of all Bishops was Anciently Sole in the King 22. The Bishops of London are Deans of the Episcopal Colledge 23. A Case at Common Law touching a Lease made by one Bishop during the life of another of the same Diocess in Ireland 1. BISHOP Episcopus from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 supra and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 intendere an Overseer or Superintendent so called from that watchfulness care charge and faithfulness which by his Place and Dignity he hath and oweth to the Church A word which all Antiquity hath appropriated to signifie the Chief in Superintendency over the whole Church within his Diocess wherein are divers inferiour Pastors This Oversight or Care the Hebrews call Pekudah Of this Office or Ecclesiastical Dignity there can be but one at a time in one and the same Diocess whence it is that Cornelius Bishop of Rome as Eusebius relates upbraided Novatius for his ignorance in that point when he could not but know there were no less than 46 Presbyters in that Church Oecumenius and St. Chrysostome affirming also as many at Philippi For in this restrained sense as the word Bishop is now taken it cannot be imagined that there should be more than one in one City or Diocess at the same time consonant whereunto the Synod of Nice prohibited Two or more Bishops to have their Seats at once in the same City This Novatius aforesaid was a Priest of Rome 254 years after Christ he abhorred Second Marriages and was condemned as an Heretick in a Synod at Rome the same year Every Bishop many Centuries after Christ was universal Incumbent of his Diocess received all the Profits which were but Offerings of Devotion out of which he paid the Salaries of such as Officiated under himâ—
manner viz. The Bishops See being vacant the Dean and Chapter of that Cathedral gives notice thereof to the King humbly requesting his Majesty's leave to chuse another the King grants his Congé d'Eslire Thereupon the Dean summons a Chapter they elect the person recommended by his Majesties Letters that Election after a first or second modest refusal being accepted by the party elected is certified to the King and to the Archbishop of that Province hereupon the King grants his Royal Assent under his Great Seal exhibited to the said Archbishop with Command to Confirm and Consecrate him upon this the Archbishop subscribes his Fiat Confirmatio withal giving Commission under his Archiepiscopal Seal to his Vicar-General to perform all the Acts requisite for perfecting his Confirmation Hereupon the Vicar-General in the Archbishops name issues a Citation summoning all Opposeâ—s of the said Election to make their appearance at a certain time and place then and there to offer their Objections if they have any This done by an Officer of the High-Court of Arches usually at Bow-Church London by Proclamation thrice and affixing the said Citation on that Church-door an Authentick Certificate thereof is by the said Officer returned to the said Archbishop and Vicar-General At the time and place aforesaid the Proctor for the said Dean and Chapter exhibits the Royal Assent and the Commission of the Archbishop to the Vicar-General who after the reading thereof accepts the same Then the Proctor exhibits the Proxy from the Dean and Chapter presents the elected Bishop returns the Citation and desires that the Opposers may be thrice publickly called which done and their Contumacy accused desires that in poenam Contumaciae the business in hand may proceed which the Vicar-General in a Schedule by him read and subscribed doth order Then the Proctor gives a Summary Petition therein deducing the whole Process of Election and Consent and desires a time may be assign'd him to prove it which the Vicar-General admits and decrees After this the Proctor exhibits the Royal Assent again with the elected Bishops Assent and the said Certificate to the Archbishop desiring a time to be presently assigned for Final Sentence which the Vicar-General decrees Then the Proctor desires that all Opposers may again be thrice publickly called which done and none appearing nor opposing they are pronounced Contumacious and a Decree made to proceed to Sentence by a Schedule read and subscribed by the Vicar-General Whereupon the Bishop elect takes the Oaths of Supremacy Simony and Canonical Obedience After this the Dean of the Arches reads and subscribes the Sentence Next after the Confirmation follows the Consecration of the elected Bishop according to the Kings Mandate which is solemnly done by the Archbishop with the assistance of two other Bishops according to the approved Rights and Ceremonies of the Church of England and in conformity to the manner and Form of Consecrating Bishops according to the Rule laid down in the Fourth Council of Carthage about the year 470 generally received in all the Provinces of the Western Church After the Premises there issues a Mandate from the Archbishop to the Archdeacon of his Province to install the Bishop Elected Confirmed and Consecrated who or his Proxy which is usual being in presence of a Publick Notary introduced into the Cathedral Church on any day between the hours of 9 and 11 by the said Archdeacon doth first declare his assent to the Kings Supremacy c. Then the Archdeacon with the Canons c. having accompanied the Bishop to the Quire and placed him in the Episcopal Seat doth pronounce as followeth viz. Ego authoritate mihi Commissa Induco Inthroâ—izo Reverendum in Christo Patrem Dominum J. S. Episcopum Et Dominus custodiat suum introitum exitum ex hoc nunc in saeculum c. Then after the Divine Service proper for the occasion the Bishop being conducted into the Chapter-house and there placed on a high Seat the Archdeacon and all the Prebends c. of the Church acknowledge Canonical Obedience to him And the Publick Notary by the Archdeacons command records the whole matter of Fact in this Affair in an Instrument to remain as Authentick to Posterity After all which the Bishop is introduced into the Kings presence to do his Homage for his Temporalties or Barony by kneeling down and putting his hands between the hands of the King sitting in his Chair of State and by taking a solemn Oath to be true and faithful to his Majesty and that he holds his Temporalties of Him When Matth. Parker in the second year of Queen Eliz. 1559. elected to the Archbishoprick of Canterbury had his Confirmation in the Court of Arches according to the usual form in that behalf This being performed an entertainment for the Vicar General the Dean of the Arches and other Officers of that Court whose presence was requisite at this Solemnity was provided at the Nagâ—head Tavern in Cheapside Lond. whereby occasion was taken by the Roman Adversaries maliciously to report That the Nagshead Tavern was the place of Consecration Heyl. The form or manner of making a Bishop and of translating him from one Bishoprick to another differs only in this that in the latter there needs no Consecration And the translation of a Bishop to an Archbishoprick differs only in the Commission which is directed by his Majesty to four or more Bishops to Confirm him 5. Each Archbishop every Bishop and their Officials have their Seals of Office respectively which being affixed to a writing makes the Instrument Authentick whereby the use and practice of Tabellions or Publick Notaries as in Forreign parts is with us much abated For that of a Tabellion allowed by Authority to Engross and Register private Contracts and Obligations his Office in some Countries did formerly differ from that of a publick Notary but now they are as one and the same Office Quoniam Tabellionum usus in Regno Angliae proper quod magis ad Sigilla Authentica credi est necesse ut â—orum facilius habeatur Statuimus ut Sigillum habeant non solum Archiepiscopi Episcopi sed eorum Officiales And all Bishops Ordinaries Archdcacons and all others exercising any Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction ought to have the Kings Arms engraven on their Seal of Office but the Archbishop of Canterbury may use his own Seal And all Process Ecclesiastical and Certificates into any Court of Record are to be in the Kings name Teste the Bishop But as to the making admitting ordering and reforming of Chancellors Commissaries Officials Advocates Proctors and other Officers Ministers and Substitutes This the Bishops may do in their own Names and under their own Seals 6. If one be Elected and the Temporalties granted to him yet he is not Bishop before Consecration 41 E. 3. 6. 46 E. 3. 32. Quaere For he may refuse to be Bishop after Election and before Consecration but not after 41 E. 3. 5. b. When upon
vacancy of a Bishoprick the Dean and Chapter by virtue of his Majesties License under the Great Seal of England hath proceeded to the Election of a new Bishop in pursuance of and according to his Majesties Letters Missive on that behalf and Certificate thereof made unto the Kings Majesty under their Common Seal then follows the Confirmation Consecration and Investiture by the Archbishop or Metropolitan of that Province wherein such Bishoprick was void the said Election having upon such elected Bishops Oath of Fealty to the Kings Majesty been first signified to the Archbishop by the King under his Great Seal whereby the said Archbishop is required to Confirm the said Election and to Consecrate and Invest the person Elected And now he is compleat Bishop as well unto Temporalties as Spiritualties yet after his Confirmation and before his Consecration the King may if he please ex gratia grant him the Temporalties But after his Consecration Investiture and Instalment he is qualified to sue for his Temporalties out of the Kings hands by the Writ de Restitutione Temporalium And yet it seems the Temporalties are not de jure to be delivered to him until the Metropolitan hath certified the time of his Consecration although the Freehold thereof be in him by his very Consecration But if during the Vacation of Archbishopricks or Bishopricks and while their Temporalties are in the Kings hands the Freehold-Tenants of Archbishops or Bishops happen to be attainted of Felony the King by his Prerogative hath the Escheats of such Freeholders-Lands to dispose thereof at his pleasure saving to such Prelates the Service that is thereto due and accustomed Before the Conquest the Principality of Wales was held of the King of England and by the Rebellion and forfeiture of the Prince the Principality came to the King of England whereby the Bishopricks were annexed to the Crown and the King grants them their Temporalties 10 H. 4. 6. 7. The manner of making a Bishop is fully described in Evans and Kiffin's Case against Askwith wherein it was agreed That when a Bishop dies or is Translated the Dean and Chapter certifie the King thereof in Chancery and pray leave of the King to make Election Then the King gives his Congé d'Esâ—ire whereupon they make their Election and first certifie the same to the party Elect and have his consent Then they certifie it to the King in Chanceâ—y also they certifie it to the Archbishop and then the King by his Letters Patents gives his Royal Assent and commands the Archbishop to Confirm and Consecrate him and to do all other things necessary thereunto whereupon the Archbishop examines the Election and the Ability of the party and thereupon confirms the Election and after Consecrates him according to the usage upon a New Creation And upon a Translation all the said Ceremonies are observed saving the Consecration which is not in that case requisite for that he was Consecrated before 8. Bishopricks were Donatives by the King till the time of W. Rufus and so until the time of King John Read for that the History of Eadmerus Vid. Case Evans vers Ascouth in â—in Caâ— Noy 's Rep. It hath been generally held That before the Conquest and after till the time of King John Bishops were Invested by the King per Baculum Annulum but King John by his Charter granted That there should be a Canonical Election with Three Restrictions 1. That leave be first asked of the King 2. His Assent afterwards 3. That he shall have the Temporalties during the Vacation of the Bishoprick whereof mention is made in the Stat. of 25 Ed. 3. de Provisoribus and which is confirmed by the Stat. of 13 R. 2. c. 2. Also the Law in general is positive therein That in the making of all Bishops it shall be by Election and the Kings Assent and by the 25 H. 8. the Statute for Consecration of Bishops makes it more certain And if the Pope after the said Charter did use to make any Translation upon a Postulation without Election and Assent of the King it was but an Usurpation and contrary to the Law and restrained by 16 R. 2. and 9 H. 4. 8. And after the 25 H. 8. it was never used to have a Bishop by Postulation or any Translation of him but by Election as the said Statute prescribes And the form of making a Bishop at this day is after the same manner as aforesaid and according to the said Statute 9. The Interest and Authority which a Bishop Elect hath is That he is Episcopus Nominis non Ordinis neque Jurisdictionis But by his Confirmation he hath Potestatem Jurisdictionis as to Excommunicate and Certifie the same 8 Rep. 89. And then the power of the Guardian of the Spiritualties doth cease But after Election and Confirmation he hath Potestatem Ordinationis for then he may Consecrate confer Orders c. For a Bishop hath Three Powers 1. Ordinis which he hath by Consecration whereby he may take the Resignation of a Church confer Orders consecrate Churches And this doth not appertain to him quatenus Bishop of this or that place but is universal over the whole World So the Archbishop of Spalato when he was here conferr'd Orders 2. Jurisdictionis which is not Universal but limited to a place and confin'd to his See This power he hath upon his Confirmation 3. Administratio rei familiaris as the Government of his Revenue and this also he hath upon his Confirmation The Bishop acts either by his Episcopal Order or by his Episcopal Jurisdiction By the former he Ordains Deacons and Priests Dedicates or Consecrates Churches Chappels and Churchyards administers Confirmation c. By the latter he acts as an Ecclesiastical Judge in matters Spiritual by his Power either Ordinary or Delegated 10. An. 1430. Temp. Reg. H. 6. Hen. Chicheley Archiepisc Cant. in Synodo Constitutum est Ne quis Jurisdictionem Ecclesiasticam exerceret nisi Juris Civilis aut Canonici gradum aliquem ab Oxoniâ—nsi vel Cantabrigiensi Academia accepisset Ant. Brit. fo 284. nu 40. The power of the Bishop and Archbishop is derived from the Crown as was held in Walkers Case against Lamb where it was also held That the Grant of a Commissary or Official to one was good notwithstanding he were a Lay man and not a Doctor of Law but only a Batchelour of Law for the Court then said That the Jurisdiction of the Bishop and Archdeacon is derived from the Crown by usage and prescription and that in it self as it is coercive to punish Crimes or to determine Matrimonial Causes and Probate of Testaments and granting of Administrations being Civil Causes are derived from the Crown and not incident de mero jure to the Bishop which appears by Henslows Case par 9. Cawdry's Case par 5. 1 Ed. 6. c. 2. the Stat. of 37 H. 8. and divers other Authorities and the Statute of 37 H. 8. c.
17. is to that purpose 11. In former times many Bishops had their Suffragans who were also Consecrated as other Bishops were These in the absence of the Bishops upon Embassies or in multiplicity of business did supply their places in matter of Orders but not in Jurisdiction These were chiefly for the ease of the Bishops in the multiplicity of their Affairs ordained in the Primitive times called Chorepiscopi Suffragan or Subsidiary Bishops or Bishops Suffragans and were Titular Bishops Consecrated by the Archbishop of the Province and to execute such Power and Authority and receive such profits as were limited in their Commissions by the Bishops or Diocosans whose Suffragans they were What Towns or Places to be the Sees of Bishops Suffragans and how many to a Diocess and in what Diocesses appears by an Act of Parliament made in the Reign of King H. 8. Such Suffragan Bishops are made in case the Archbishop or some other Bishop desire the same In which case the Bishop presents Two able persons for any place allowed by the said Act of Parliament whereof his Majesty doth chuse one but at present there are no Suffragan Bishops in England They were no other than the Chorepiscopi of the Primitive Times Subsidiary Bishops ordained for easing the Diocesan of some part of his burthen as aforesaid by means whereof they were enabled to perform such Offices belonging to that Sacred Function not limited to time and place by the ancient Canons by which a Bishop was restrained in some certain Acts of Jurisdiction to his proper Diocess Of these there were twenty six in the Realm of England distinguished by the Names of such Principal Towns as were appointed for their Title and Denomination The Names and Number whereof together with the Jurisdiction and preheminences proportioned to them the Reader may peruse in the Act of Parliament made An. 26 H. 8. 12. According to the Temporal Laws of this Land if a Bishop grant Letters of Institution under any other Seal than his Seal of Office and albeit it be out of his Diocess yet it is good For in Cort's Case against the Bishop of St. Davids and others where the Plaintiff offered in evidence Letters of Institution which appeared to be sealed with the Seal of the Bishop of London because the Bishop of St. Davids had not his Seal of Office there and which Letters were made also out of the Diocess It was held That they were good enough albeit they were sealed with another Seal and made out of the Diocess for that the Seal is not material it being an Act made of the Institution And the writing and sealing is but a Testimonial thereof which may be under any Seal or in any place But of that point they would advise 13. A Bishop if he celebrate Divine Service in any Church of his Diocess may require the Offerings of that day He may sequester if the King present not and 12 H. 8. 8. by Pollard he must see the Cure served if the person fail at his own Costs He may commit Administration where Executors being called refuse to prove the Will He hath power of distribution and disposing of Seats and charges of Repairs of the Churches within his Diocess He may award his Jure Patronatus where a Church is Litigious between an Usurper and the other but if he will chuse the Clerk of either at his peril he ought at his peril to receive him that hath Right by the Statute He may License Physicians Chirurgions Schoolmasters and Midwives He may Collate by Lapse He may take competent time to examine the sufficiency and fitness of a Clerk He may give convenient time to persons interested to take notice of Avoidances He is discharged against the true Patron and quit of Disturbance to whom it cannot be imputed if he receive that Clerk that is in pursuance of a Verdict after Inquest in a Jure Patronatus He may have Six Chaplains and every Archbishop may have Eight Chaplains He may unite and consolidate small Parishes and assist the Civil Magistrate in execution of some Statutes concerning Ecclesiastical Affairs And by the Statute of 1 Eliz. cap. 2. any Bishop may at his pleasure joyn and associate himself to the Justices of Oyer and Terminer or to the Justices of Assize at the open and general Sessions to be holden at any place within his Diocess in Causes of the Church And the Statute made 17 Car. 1. c. 27. for the disinabling of persons in Holy Orders to exercise Temporal Jurisdiction or Authority is Repealed by the Statute of 13 Car. 2. cap. 2. whereby they are now enabled to exercise such Temporal Jurisdiction as formerly and is commonly styled the Ordinary of that Diocess where he doth exercise his Episcopal Authority and Jurisdiction In Parliament Bishops as Barons may be present and Vote at the Trial and Arraignment of a Peer only before Sentence of death or loss of Member be pronounced that they may have no hand in blood in any kind they have by Canon Law the Priviledge and Injunction to absent themselves and by Common Law to make Proxies to vote for them 14. ORDINARY according to the acceptation of the Common Law with us is usually taken for him that hath Ordinary Jurisdiction in Causes Ecclesiastical immediate to the King He is in Common understanding the Bishop of the Diocess who is the Supervisor and for the most part Visitor of all his Churches within his Diocess and hath Ordinary Jurisdiction in all the Causes aforesaid for the doing of Justice within his Diocess in jure proprio non per deputationem and therefore it is his care to see that the Church be provided of an able Curate Habet enim Curam Curarum and may execute the Laws of the Church by Ecclesiastical Censures and to him alone are made all Presentations to Churches vacant within his Diocess Ordinarius habet locum principaliter in Episcopo aliis Superioribus qui soli sunt Vniversales in suis Jurisdictionibus sed sunt sub eo alii Ordinarii hi videlicet quibus Competit Jurisdictio Ordinaria de jure privilegio vel consuetudine Lindw cap. Exterior tit de Constitutionib 15. The Jurisdiction of the Ordinary or Bishop as to the Examination of the Clerk or as to the Admission or Institution of him into a Benefice is not Local but it follows the person of the Ordinary or Bishop wheresoever he is And therefore if a Clerk be presented to the Bishop of Norwich to a Church which is void within the Diocess of Norwich who is then in London or if it be to a Bishop of Ireland who is then in England and in London the Ordinary may examine the Clerk or give him Admission or Institution in London And so it was adjudged 16. The Ordinary is not obliged upon a Vacancy to receive the Clerk of him that comes first for as he
may take competent time to examine the sufficiency and fitness of a Clerk so may he give convenient time to persons interessed to take knowledge of the Avoidance even in case of Death and where notice is to be taken not given to present their Clerks to it And perhaps if he do receive the Clerk of him that comes first yet he may quit himself of Disturbance because he doth nothing therein but as Ordinary in Law But if two or more Present so that the Title is become Litigious then and in such case he cannot receive the Clerk of any of his own pleasure except the Title be certain but hath his way of safety by Jure Patronatus and when he hath used the Jure Patronatus and that finds for one party yet he may still receive a contrary Clerk if he will for who can lett him but that must be at his own peril and that is at a double peril 1. That the Title be the better 2. That the Patron whose Clerk he hath received will plead and defend that Title for otherwise he cannot do it But though after Inquest in Jure Patronatus the Ordinary may accept the contrary Clerk yet it is against Justice and the intent of the Law For since it is a Provision meerly for the good and safety of the Ordinary and he pretends Doubt and therefore puts the Patron to this enquiry to his charge and delay to satisfie and secure him he ought to judge and receive the Clerk according to that Verdict And that is the true meaning of the Books that say that the Ordinary is to judge of the better Title that is not to prejudge of his own Will but secundum allegata probata upon Verdict of the Right given and found according to the form of Law to give Institution which is his Judgment and the Induction his Execution And though it is but an Inquest of Office and therefore binds not True it is it binds not but with a distinction that is it binds not the Patron in his Quare Impedit but is Final even to the true Patron that he cannot impute disturbance to the Ordinary following that Verdict and therefore it ought to bind him to follow it For to these purposes it is a full Verdict never to be tried again And if but one Present if the Ordinary make doubt of his Title as in many cases he justly may being a stranger to it he may require satisfaction by Jure Patronatus 17. If it be demanded whether the Ordinary can cite a man out of his Diocess the Common Law answers it in the Negative And so it was held by Jones and Whitlock Justices in Brown's Case where they held That at the Common Law a Bishop cannot cite a man out of his Diocess and there Whitlock held that the Ordinary hath not any power of Jurisdiction out of his Diocess but to absolve a person Excommunicated If one in N. commit Adultery in another Diocess during the time of his Residence he may be cited in the Diocess where he committed the offence although he dwell out of the Diocess by Coke Warburton and Winch And in the time of his Visitation he hath Jus ad Synodalia according to the Custome more or less as in Gloucestershire where the Impropriation of Dereburt pays annually 7s 9d pro Synodalibus Procurationibus for this Synodal is not in this sense here taken as in the Statute of 25 H. 8. cap. 19. for Synodals Provincial which seem to signifie the Canons or Constitutions of a Provincial Synod nor for the Synod it self which the word Synodale doth sometimes signifie but it is here in the same sense as the word Synodies in the Statute of 34 H. 8. cap. 16. for a Synodal is no other than a Cense or Tribute in mony paid to the Bishop or Archdeacon by the Inferiour Clergy 18. Every Spiritual person is visitable by the Ordinary So is a Dean de mero jure for he is Spiritual The Ordinary hath also power of Correction of a Parson And every Hospital be it Lay or Spiritual is Visitable By the ancient Law of the Realm the King hath power to Visit reform and correct all Abuses and Enormities in the Church Nor are the Kings Donatives visitable by the Ordinary but properly by the Lord Chancellour And the King may grant a Special Commission to that purpose But as to Hospitals if they be Spiritual the Ordinary shall visit them if they be Lay-Hospitals the Patron In the Statute of 1 El. cap. 2. there is a Proviso That all and singular Archbishops and Bishops and every of their Chancellors Commissaries Archdeacons and other Ordinaries having any peculiar Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction shall have full power and authority by virtue of this Act as well to enquire in their Visitations Synods and elsewhere within their Jurisdiction or any other time or place to take occasions and informations of all and every the things above-mentioned done committed or perpetrated within the Limits of their Jurisdiction or Authority and to punish the same by Admonition Excommunication Sequestration or Deprivation and other Censures and Process in like manner as heretofore hath been used by the Queens Ecclesiastical Laws The Ancient custome was for the Visitor to visit in his own person visitare Ecclesiatim per cunctas Dioceses parochiasque suas 10. q. 1. c. Episcopum E. Concil Toletan 4. ca. 35. This Visitation is a special and peculiar duty belonging to every Bishop as derived from the Apostles who themselves were Visitors and for that end and purpose did pertransire Ecclesias Vrbes The Bishop hath his Triennials per Archidiaconi Visitatio potest fieri singulis annis Extr. de Offic. Archid. c. Mandamus We find also that Episcopus debet Visitare singulis annis Parochiam nisi dimittat propter gravamen Ecclesiarum tunc mittat Archidiaconum c. Ab. Sic. super 2. 1. de Offic. Archid. c. ut Archidiaconus 10. q. 1. c. Decrevimus c. Episcopum 19. Every Bishop hath his Cathedral and Council and the Council and Bishop there decide matters of Controversie the Prebends have their names from the affording of help to the Bishop If any Clerk after he hath sworn Canonical Obedience should happen to commit Episcopicide he is guilty of Petty-Treason and shall suffer as such Whereas heretofore the County of Gloucester was a part of the Diocess of Worcester out of which it was taken by King H. 8. when first made a Bishoprick the Diocess of Worcester was in the time of King Ed 6. laid to the See of Gloucester Dr. Heylin 's Hist Eccl. p. 101. Next unto the Two Archbishops the Bishop of London of all the other Bishops hath the Preheminence Episcopus Londinensis says an Ancient Record speciali quadam Dignitate caeteris anteponendus quia Ecclesiae Cantuariensis Decanus est Provincialis The Bishop of Duresme who is
next in precedency hath been a Count Palatine about six or seven hundred years and hath at this day the Earldom of Sadberg long since annexed to this Bishoprick by the King Note a President hath been shewed at Common Law That the Bishop of Durham imprisoned one for a Lay-Cause and the Archbishop of York as his Sovereign cited him to appear before him to answer for that Imprisonment and the Archbishop was fined four thousand Marks Cro. par 1. The Bishop of Winchester was anciently reputed Earl of Southampton All the other Bishops take place according to the Seniority of their Consecration unless any Bishop happen to be made Lord Chancellor Treasurer Privy Seal or Secretary of State which anciently was very usual All the Bishops of England are Barons and Peers of the Realm have place in the Upper house of Parliament as also in the Upper house of Convocation The Bishopricks were erected into Baronies by William the Conqueror at his coming into England And as a special remark of Honour Three Kings viz. of England Scotland and South-Wales in the year 1200. did contribute their Royal shoulders for the conveyance of the deceased Corps of Hugh Bishop of Lincoln to his Grave And no wonder when Princes themselves and such as were of the Blood Royal were anciently Bishops in this Kingdom they have been not only of the best Nobility but divers of the Sons and Brothers of several English Kings since the Conquest and before have entred into Holy Orders and became Ecclesiasticks as at this day is practicable in the most of all other Monarchies throughout the whole Christian World Ethelwolph Son and Successor to Egbert first Sole King of England was in Holy Orders and Bishop of Winchester at his Fathers death Odo Brother to William the Conqueror was Bishop of Bayeux in Normandy Henry de Blois Brother to King Stephen was Bishop of Winchester Geofry Plantagenet Son to King Henry the Second was Bishop of Lincoln And Henry de Beauford Brother to King Henry the Fourth was Bishop also of Winchester 20. The Statute of 17 Car. 1. cap. 27. for disinabling persons in Holy Orders to exercise Temporal Jurisdiction or Authority being Repealed as aforesaid by the Statute of 13 Car. 2. cap. 2. they are thereby restored to the exercise of Temporal Jurisdiction as formerly which indeed is no more than what they ever Anciently exercised in this Kingdom For Ex Clero Rex semper sibi eligebat Primos à Consiliis Primos ad Officia Regni obeunda Primi igitur sedebant in omnibus Regni Comitiis Tribunalibus Episcopi in Regali quidem Palatio cum Regni Magnatibus in Comitatu una cum Comite in Turno cum Vice-comite in Hundredo cum Domino Hundredi sic ut in promovenda Justitia usquequaque gladii gladium adjuvaret nihil inconsulto Sacerdote vel Episcopo ageretur This Union of Persons Authority and Courts of Judicature Ecclesiastical and Civil as Mr. Selden proves continued above Four thousand years till Pope Nicholas the First about the Eighth Century to exclude the Emperour from medling in the Ecclesiastical Government began to exclude the Clergy from medling with the Civil And for the space of four or five hundred years during the Reign of the Saxon Kings in England the Ecclesiastical and Secular Magistrates sate joyntly together determining Ecclesiastical Affairs in the Morning and Secular or Civil Affairs in the Afternoon so that in those days as there was no clashing of Jurisdictions so no complaint touching Prohibitions but an unanimous harmony in a kind of Joynt-Jurisdiction in reference to all Ecclesiastical and Civil Affairs until William the Conqueror did put a distinction between Church and State in a more divided way than formerly had been practiced Also the excellent Laws made by King Ina King Athelstan King Edmund and St. Edward the Confessor from whom we have our Common Laws and our Priviledges mentioned in Magna Charta were all made by the perswasions and advice of Archbishops and Bishops named in our Histories 21. That which during the Reign of King Edw. 6. made the greatest alteration and threatned most danger to the State Ecclesiastical was the Act entituled An Act for Election and what Seals and Styles shall be used by Spiritual persons c. In which it was ordained That Bishops should be made by the Kings Letters Patents and not by the Election of the Deans and Chapters That all their Processes and Writings should be made in the Kings Name only with the Bishop's Teste added to it and sealed with no other Seal than the Kings or such as should be Authorized and Appointed by him In the compounding of which Act there was more danger as Dr. Heylin observes couched than at first appeared For by the last Branch thereof it was plain and evident says he that the intent of the Contrivers was by degrees to weaken the Authority of the Episcopal Order by forcing them from their strong hold of Divine Institution and making them no other than the Kings Ministers only or as it were his Ecclesiastical Sheriffs to execute his Will and disperse his Mandates And of this Act such use was made though possibly beyond the true intention of it that as the said Dr. Heylin observes the Bishops of those Times were not in a Capacity of conferring Orders but as they were thereunto impowred by special License The Tenour whereof if Sanders be to be believed was in these words following viz. The King to such a Bishop Greeting Whereas all and all manner of Jurisdiction as well Ecclesiastical as Civil flows from the King as from the Supream Head of all the Body c. We therefore give and grant to thee full power and License to continue during our good pleasure for holding Ordination within thy Diocess of N. and for promoting fit persons unto Holy Orders even to that of the Priesthood Which being looked on by Queen Mary not only as a dangerous diminution of the Episcopal Power but as an odious Innovation in the Church of Christ she caused this Act to be Repealed in the first year of her Reign leaving the Bishops to depend on their former claim and to act all things which belonged to their Jurisdiction in their own Names and under their own Seals as in former times In which estate they have continued without any Legal Interruption from that time to this But says the same Author in the First Branch there was somewhat more than what appeared at the first sight For though it seemed to aim at nothing but that the Bishops should depend wholly on the King for their preferment to those great and eminent places yet the true drift of the Design was to make Deans and Chapters useless for the time to come and thereby to prepare them for a Dissolution For had nothing else been intended in it but that the King should have the sole Nomination of all the Bishops in his Kingdoms it had
a kind of Collect for the Saint to whose Name the Church is Dedicated and some other Services as the Chaunter shall appoint So that although the Patron might chuse the Ground yet the Prelate was to come and Consecrate it the Patron might bring the Stones but the Bishop laid the Foundation the Workmen might with the Materials make a House but the Bishop by Consecration made it a Church It was but the dead body of a Temple till it received the being of a Church by the influence of the Diocesan Thence it was that the priviledge of a new Church followed not the Building but the Consecration thereof as was well observed by that Devout and Learned King Alured in the fifth Canon of his Ecclesiastical Laws where he saith That if a man pursued by his Enemy flie to the Temple no man shall thence take him away for the space of seven days which Law was yet made under a Caution That this freedom shall not be granted to any Church but such as shall be Consecrated by the Bishop 5. Consecration relating to the person office and dignity of a Bishop as in the former part of this Chapter was by the Imperial Law so necessary to the making him a Bishop compleat as that without it his Election and Confirmation would not have entituled him to any Church that should be new erected within his Diocess whereunto he being Consecrated had a right and Title as is evident not only by the Emperours Novel but also more peculiarly acknowledged by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the setting up of the Cross behind the Altar when he made the Consecration Thus the Eucholgue for the Greek Church The like also is observed in the Latin where the Ceremonies are more tedious and elaborate By the setting up of the said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Right of the new Church was conveyed to the Patriarch or Bishop as by an especial Title and that not only by the Euchologue in the Greek but also by the Emperour 's Novel in the Latin Church Concerning which Right and the Conveyance thereof by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Observable to this purpose is that Synodical Sentence given by Germanus Patriarch of Constantinople against John Archbishop of Lepanto touching certain Episcopal Monasteries whereon he had illegally fixed his Cross under pretence of a Right to the same 6. This Consecration specially as it refers to Bishops is Character indelebilis insomuch that although it should so happen that for some just cause he should be deposed or removed from the See or suspended ab Officio Beneficio both from his Spiritual Jurisdiction as to the exercise and execution thereof as also from the Temporalties and profits of the Bishoprick yet he still retains the Title of a Bishop for that it is supposed the Order it self cannot absolutely be taken from him King H. 1. banished Thurstan Archbishop of York for five years for receiving Consecration from the Pope Speed 440. b. 458. b. 7. It appears by good Chronology that the first that ever Consecrated Churches was Euginus who was a Greek and Priest of Rome and was the first that ever styled himself Pope An. 154. who wrote de Trinitate Vnitate Dei. He was the first that Decreed that Churches should be Consecrated with the consent of the Metropolitan or Bishop and that there should be one God-father and one Godmother at Baptism 8. In a Case of Translation the Bishop need not to be Consecrated de Novo as in case of Creation Anciently and according to the Canon Law and where the Pope's Spiritual power and authority was in force Bishops were not so much by Election as by Postulation and then the saying was Electus Postulando Postulatus obligando and in that case the Elected was a Bishop presently without either Confirmation or Consecration only by the Assent of the Superiour Before Consecration the Bishop hath not actual possession although he hath a Freehold in Law after Consecration But in case of Translation there is not any new Election nor may the Dean and Chapter pray a Congé d'Estire but they signifie to the King how their Bishoprick is void ideo humilime Postulamus Humbricensem Episcopum fore Episcopum nostrum and that is called Postulation and then if the King grant it he is the Bishop Trin. 21 Jac. B. R. Sir Jo. Vaughan's Case vers Ascough Roll. Rep. Postulatio est alicujus personae ad dignitatem vel Societatem Fraternam Canonica facta vocatio vel est personae quae eligi non potest ad eligendum petitio Cap. innotuit § habito de Elect. The Bishop of St. P. was chosen Bishop of Trevers and had the assent of the Pope and when he came there he found another in possession whereupon he would have returned to his former Bishoprick but could not because it was void before by the consent of the Superiour And in the Case of Evans and Ascough it was said That a Bishop hath been Summoned to Parliament before by Confirmation but as Jones there said That was after his Possessions or Temporalties were restored to him And Caltheep there said That in the Case of Translation of a Bishop there are five things to be performed 1. The Chapters Intimation of the death of their Bishop praying Congé d'Estire 2. Congé al eux d'Estire 3. A Certificate of the Election 4. The Assent of the Bishop and the King 5. The Writ to the Archbishop to Confirm and Install him because in such case of Translation he shall not be Consecrated de Novo as aforesaid But Consecration is necessary to the making of him a Bishop who was none before and is the fourth Act in order to a Bishop according to the enumeration of these steps and degrees thereunto which in the said case of Evans and Ascough is mentioned by Whitlock where he faith That in the making of a Bishop when a Bishoprick is void the course is 1. To obtain a Congé d'Estire 2. The Kings Letters Missive whom they shall abuse 3. Vpon the Election three Instruments thereof one whereof to the party Elected another to the Archbishop a third to the King certifying him of the Election and then there is an act of Assent to the Election which cannot be without his Assent 4. The Kings Writ to the Archbishop to Consecrate and Install the person Elected 5. Then the Archbishop issues forth a general Citation and therein doth prefix a certain day for the Confirmation which is done accordingly and then be is Consecrated Then the new Bishop swears Fealty to the King which being done the King orders him his Temporalties so that there are three principal Acts required to the making of a Bishop The Election is as the Sollicitation the Confirmation is the Contract the Consecration is the Consummation of the Marriage Answerable whereunto said Doderidge in the Case aforesaid are the Acts of making a Parson As 1. Presentation whereto
be a Licentiate in Law or Divinity Cons Trid. 8. Cessio de Reform general Can. 12. They are called the Chief of the Deacons C. 1. de Scrutin in Ord. faciend in whom there is an Ecclesiastical Dignity inherent jure Communi And in some places they have this Dignity sine Officio for Innocentius observes That in Ecclesia Parmensi Archidiaconus nullum exercet Officium nihilominus dignitatem habet Innocent in c. de multa de Praebend But regularly according to the Canon Law Archdeacons as to their Dignity Office and Degree are to be reputed according to the Law Usage and Custome of their own Church and Chapter Hostiens Sum. de Offic. Archid. The Archdeacon is Oculus Episcopi and ipso jure his Vicar in Visitations Corrections and Dispensations in matters Ecclesiastical within his Jurisdiction he hath power of reforming the Clergy of examining and presenting to the Bishop such as are to be Ordained and of putting into possession such as are Presented Instituted and Inducted into Ecclesiastical Benefices 9. Cardinal Otho in his Canon de Archidiaconis hath Ordained That all Archdeacons do prudently and faithfully visit the Churches within their respective Archdeaconries as touching the Sacred Vessels and Vestments thereof and generally to enquire into the Temporalties and Spiritualties belonging to the same and that they endeavour to amend what they find amiss Also that they grieve not the Churches with superfluous charges or expences but require only moderate procurations in their Visitations wherein they may not presume to receive money of any when Crimes are to be corrected or punished nor Sentence any unjustly on purpose to extort money from them on pain of double the Sum to pious uses at the discretion of the Bishop besides other Ecclesiastical punishment Constit Othonis de Archdiaconis 10. The Canon Law doth distinguish of Archdeacons the whole Title throughout De Offic. Archidiac regularly speaks of an Archdeacon General who hath not any Archdeaconry distinctly limited Sed tanquam Vicarius fungitur vice Episcopi Vniversaliter and doth represent the Bishop Extra de Consue non putamus Otherwise it is in him who hath a distinct Limitation of his Archdeaconry for then he hath a Jurisdiction separate from the Bishop which where it is by Custome may be prescribed Gloss in ver Visitent dict Const Otho Consonant to this seems that difference which the Judges took in the Case between Chiverton and Trudgeon wherein they held and agreed That there is a Jurisdiction of one Archdeacon and there is the Jurisdiction of another which is but a peculiar Jurisdiction for the Archdeacon is an Officer who hath a Court of his own in which he hath the Probat of Testaments de jure And Doderidge Justice said That he is a principal Officer belonging to the Bishop est quasi Oculus Episcopi but otherwise it is of one who hath but a special Jurisdiction as the Archdeacon of Richmond hath to make Institutions and so 21 H. 6. 23. the Dean of Pauls in that case hath special Authority in St. Panchridge Hill 17 Jac. B. R. Case Chiverton and Trudgeon Roll. Rep. 11. In the Case between Gastrell and Jones it was said by Ley Chief Justice That it is to be considered what Authority the Archdeacon hath in his own nature as such and what power he may have by Prescription or otherwise The Archdeacon is a Minister subordinate to the Bishop viz. Deputy and Vicar or an Officer under him for in case of Induction the Bishops Warrant is necessary to impower him to give the same He hath also Judicial power but it is not exclusive to the Episcopal Authority but the Bishop is his Superiour Both are Judges but the one subordinate to the other c. And if Sentence be given in the Archdeacons Court the Appeal thence shall not be in the Bishops Court but in the Archbishops And if a man dies Intestate having goods within the Archdeacons Jurisdiction and other Goods within the Jurisdiction of the Ordinary the Archbishop as he said shall commit the Administration to the Archdeacon 12. The Archdeacon of H. having the Parsonage of A. appropriate to it Lett the Land parcel of his Glebe for fifty years in Anno 12 Eliz. The Bishop of E. Patron of the Archdeaconry and the Dean and Chapter confirm it The Archdeacon dies another is Collated to the Archdeaconry It was the Opinion of the Justices in this Case first That the Confirmation by the Bishop was not void for that it was but an Assent only to the Lease of the Possession of the Archdeaconry and not of the Bishop and therefore not within the Statute of 1 Eliz. The second Point was Whether this Lease was void by the Statute of 13 Eliz. Quaere for not Resolved Mich. 37 38 Eliz. B. R. Sir Edw. Denny and Eakenstall 's Case Cro. par 1. 13. The same Case Reported by More An Archdeacon having a Parsonage appertaining to his Archdeaconry before the Statute of 13 Eliz. made a Lease for forty years of the Parsonage which was Confirmed after the Statute adjudged the Lease and Confirmation both good Arkingsall or Eakenstall and Denny's Case More 's Rep. 14. A Quare Impedit was brought by the Executors of J. S. for not suffering them to Present to the Archdeaconry of D. which became void in the life of the Testator and the Writ and Count both supposed a disturbance to the Testator in his life In nunc retardationem Executionis Testamenti praedict In this Case it was Resolved 1. That a Quare Impedit did lie of an Archdeaconry 2. That the Writ as brought should abate because it was in nunc retardationem which cannot be of a Disturbance in the life of the Testator But it was agreed that the Executors might have a special Action upon the Case for their Disturbance Trin. 31 Eliz. B. R. Smalwood and the Bishop of Coventry and Marshes Case Cro. par 1. CHAP. IX Of Procurations Synodals and Pentecostals 1. Procuration what whence so called and how paid 2. Whether Procurations be only due ratione Visitationis 3. Procurations Anciently paid in Victualibus and not in Money how paid to Archdeacons in Lindwoods time 4. Whether Procurations may be payable by Custome to Archdeacons sine Visitatione 5. Archdeacons to Visit personally if otherwise then how the Procurations are payable 6. Not above one Procuration to be paid how that is to be understood 7. The Number of the Visitor's Attendants by the Council of Lateran in reference to Procurations and how many an Archdeacon may have by the Canon 8. Synodals the threefold signification of that word 9. The Synodal anciently called Cathedraticum Synodaticum what the Cathedraticum was why so called the Original thereof and how it differs from Procuration 10. Pentecostal what it is when by and to whom payable the probable Original thereof 11. A remarkeble Case relating to this Subject that was Resolved and Adjudged in Ireland 1. THe
The Case of Tithes is parallel to the Case of Proxies and agrees therewith in all points For as Instruction was the cause of the payment of Tithes So Visitation which is ever accompanied with Instruction Littl. ca. de Frankalmoigne 30. b. was the cause of the Proxies And as Tithes are now due and payable to Lay-persons which have purchased Impropriate Rectories although they do not give any Instruction So Proxies are due and payable to Ordinaries out of the Impropriations and Religious houses dissolved although their Visitation ceases And as none can prescribe de non decimando as is commonly held in the Common Law So the Canon Law hath a Rule Quod nulla est adversus Procurationem praescriptio Inst Jur. Canon lib. 2. cap. de Censibus Also Proxies which resemble Tithes in other points may be well compared to them in this point viz That they shall not be subject to extinguishment by unity of possession CHAP. X. Of Diocesan Chancellors Commissaries Officials and Consistories 1. A Description of the Office of such Chancellors and how they differ from the Bishops Commissaries 2. The Antiquity and necessary use of such Chancellors 3. What the Canons Ecclesiastical require touching their Office 4. Whether a Divine that is not a Civilian may be a Chancellour 5. Where and before whom the Bishops Consistories are held 6. What is meant or intended by the word Consistory 7. The great Antiquity of the Bishops Consistories 8. That Antiquity further confirmed and proved 9. The difference between Consistorium and Tribunal 10. Incidents to the Chancellors Office as he is Oculus Episcopi 11. A short digression touching Administrators 12. The Laws and Canons touching Summoners 13. The Constitutions Provincial what provision there touching this Office of Summoners 14. A Judgment at Common Law in Action on the Case against an Apparitor or Summoner for Citing a man wrongfully into the Ecclesiastical Court 15. What a Commissary is how to be qualified with the Precincts of his Jurisdiction 16. Whether a Commissary may Cite persons of several Parishes to appear at his Visitation-Court 17. A Case at Common Law touching a Commissary made by a Dean 18. Whether a meer Lay-person may be a Commissary or Official Other points in Law touching that Office and the Grant thereof 19. Sufficiency or Insufficiency or other defects in Chancellors Commissaries c. properly cognizable not in the Temporal but Ecclesiastical Courts 20. The Office of Chancellorship as to the Right of it is held to be of Temporal but as to the Exercise thereof of Ecclesiastical cognizance 21. Whether the Offices of Chancellor Register c. in Ecclesiastical Courts be within the Statute of 5 Ed. 6. 1. THe Chancellor of a Diocess is a Church-Lawyer or the Bishops-Lawyer or that person who is Commissionated to be aiding and assisting to the Bishop in his Jurisdiction not confined to any one place of the Diocess nor limited as the Bishops Commissaries are only to some certain causes of the Jurisdiction but every where throughout the whole Diocess supplying the Bishops absence in all matters and causes Ecclesiastical within his Diocess By the Statute of 37 H. 8. c. 17. a Doctor of the Civil Law lawfully deputed may exercise all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and the Censures thereof By this Chancellor the Bishop within his Diocess keeps his Court according to the Ecclesiastical Laws in all matters pertaining to his Jurisdiction or otherwise relating more immediately to the Church or Government of the Clergy As Bishops in their Episcopal audience have had in all Ages the cognizance of all matters Ecclesiastical as well Civil as Criminal within the Jurisdiction of their Diocess so they have ever had to that end their Chancellors whom the Law calls Ecclesiecdici or Episcoporum Ecdici persons experienced in the Civil and Canon Laws to assist them in matters of Judgment and those whom we now call the Bishops Chancellours are the very self same persons in Office that anciently did exercise Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction under Bishops and were called Ecclesiecdici Papias per Gothofred in L. omnem C. de Episc Cler. in § praeterea ibid. Dr. Ridl View par 2. cap. 2. sect 3. Who forasmuch as they have with them the Bishops Authority every where within the Diocess for matters of Jurisdiction and in that the Bishops and They make but one Consistory are called the Bishop's Vicars General both in respect of their Authority which extendeth throughout the whole Diocess as also to distinguish them from the Commissaries of Bishops whose Authority as it is restrained only to some certain place of the Diocess so also to some certain causes of the Jurisdiction limited unto them by the Bishops for which reason the Law calls them Officiales Foraneos quasi Officiales astricti cuidam foro Dioeceseos tantum Dr. Ridl ibid. 2. Dr. Ridley in his View of the Civil and Ecclesiastical Law says that Chancellors of Diocesses are nigh of as great Antiquity as Bishops themselves and are such necessary Officers to Bishops that every Bishop must of necessity have a Chancellor and that if any Bishop should seem to be so compleat within himself as not to need a Chancellor yet the Archbishop of the Province in case of refusal may put a Chancellor on him in that the Law presumes the Government of a whole Diocess a matter of more weight than can be well sustained by one person alone and that although the Nomination of the Chancellour is in the Bishop yet his Authority is derived from the Law Hostiens Sum. de Offic. Vicar nu 2. For which reason the Law understands him as an Ordinary as well as the Bishop Hostiens ibid. It is most probable that the multiplicity and variety of Ecclesiastical Causes introduced the use and Office of Chancellors originally for after that Princes had granted to Ecclesiastical persons their Causes and their Consistories and Circumstances varying these Causes into a more numerous multiplication than were capable of being defined by like former Presidents necessity call'd for new Decisions and they for such Judges as were experienced in such Laws as were adapted to matters of an Ecclesiastical Cognizance which would have been too prejudicial an Avocation of Bishops from the exercise of their more Divine Function had not the office of the Chancellor in determining such matters been an expedient to prevent the said prejudice or inconvenience 3. By the Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical it is Ordered That upon the days of the Visitation every Chancellor Archdeacon Commissary and Official as also at the ordinary time when Church-wardens are Sworn shall deliver them such Books of Articles as whereon to ground their Presentments Also that they shall not suffer any to be cited into Ecclesiastical Courts by any General process of Quorum Nomina nor the same person to be cited into several Ecclesiastical Courts for one and the same Crime for which end the Chancellour and Archdeacon are within one month next after the
them offend in any of the Premisses the persons deputing them if they be Bishops shall upon Admonition of their Superiour discharge the persons exceeding the Number so limited as aforesaid But if they were deputed by Inferiour Ordinaries such Ordinaries shall be suspended from the execution of their Office until they have dismiss'd the supernumerary Apparitors by them so deputed and the parties themselves so deputed shall for ever be removed from the Office of Apparitors And in case being so dismiss'd and removed they do not desist from the execution of their said Offices they are by the first said Canon to be proceeded against and punished by Ecclesiastical Censures as persons contumacious to the Jurisdiction And finally if upon experience the number of the said Apparitors be too great in any one Diocess in the judgment of the Archbishop of Canterbury for the time being in that case he is by the said Canon impower'd to abridge them to such a number as to himself shall seem meet and expedient An Apparitor came to the Church of a Parson and said to him He is to pay Tenths to such a one at such a place four miles distant from the Church to whom the Parson did not pay them and thereupon the Bishop Certified That he refused to pay them according to the Statute of 26 H. 8. It was Resolved The Demand was not according to that Statute and the Summons to pay them not according to the Statute for the Demand ought to have been by one who hath authority to receive them which the Summoner had not And they held the Demand not good although the Bishop certified it was duly made And in the Case between the Queen and Blanch it was Resolved That the Certificate of the Bishop that the Incumbent refused to pay his Tenths is not Peremptory but Traversable and that the Demand of the Tenths must be at the house of the Incumbent and the Refusal there More 's Rep. 1225. In a Action upon the Case against the Defendant the Case was this A Summoner in the Ecclesiastical Court having a Citation against the Plaintiff Returned That he had Summoned the Plaintiff whereas in truth he never Summoned him for which the Plaintiff was Excommunicated to his great dammage It was adjudged that the Action did lie 13. By the Premisses it is manifest that the Canon is very strict and exact both in abridging the Number and redressing the Abuses incident to the Office of Apparitors which Canon in most Circumstances seems to run very parallel with that in the Provincial Constitutions Lindw Provin Constit de Censibus Procur cap. cum Apparitorum the light whereof did probably influence it into that Form wherein we now find it For by that Decree of the said Provincial Constitunions it is Ordained That a Bishop shall have unum Apparitorem Equitantem duntaxat where the Gloss well observes that by this non prohibetur Episcopo quin plures habeat pedites And every Archdeacon one in every Deanary non Equitantem sed peditem where the Bishop might also appoint Apparitors as also in Rural Deanaries Gloss ibid. verb. Duntaxat And in case more than these were Deputed or they found to offend in their Office the Penalty was as above-said Deputantes sint suspensi donec c. Deputatos ab Officio Apparitorum perpetuo suspendimus ipso facto Constit ibid. 14. Action upon the Case For that the Defendant being an Apparitor under the Bishop of Exeter maliciously and without colour or cause of suspicion of Incontinency of his own proper malice procured the Plaintiff Ex Officio upon pretence of Fame of Incontinency with one Edith whereas there was no such Fame not just cause of Suspicion to be cited to the Consistory Court of Exeter and there to be at great charges and vexation until he was cleared by Sentence which was to his great discredit and cause of great Expences and Losses for which c. upon Not guilty pleaded and found for the Plaintiff it was moved by Ashley Serjeant in Arrest of Judgment That in this Case an Action lies not For he did nothing but as an Informer and by virtue of his Office But all the Court absente Richardson held That the Action well lies For it is alledged That he falso malitiose caused him to be Cited upon pretence of Fame where there was no offence committed And avers That there was not any such Fame so as he did it maliciously and of his own head and caused him to be unjustly vexed which was to raise gain to himself whereupon they conceived That he being found guilty for it the Action well lies And therefore Rule was given to enter Judgment for the Plaintiff unless other cause was shewn And upon a second motion Richardson Ch. Justice being present Judgment was given for the Plaintiff The Consistory of the Bishop may in some Cases enjoyn Penance Where Penance is enjoyned there may be Commutation but there may not be Commutation for Penance where none is enjoyned Commutation for Penance agrees with the Customes used in the Ecclesiastical Law justified in the Common Law in the Statute of Circumspecte agatis in the time of Ed. 1. and Articuli Cleri in the time of Ed. 2. Vid. Mich. 21. Jac. B. R. Dr. Barker 's Case in Camera Stellata Roll's Rep. 15. Commissary Commissarius is a Title of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction adapted to such one as doth exercise the same in such remote places of the Diocess and at such distance from the Bishops chief Consistory as that his Chancellor cannot without too great a prejudice conveniently call the Subjects to the same The duty of such Commissary or Officialis Fâ—ranei is to officiate the Bishops Jurisdiction in the remoter parts of the Diocess or in such Parishes as are the Bishop's peculiar and exempt from the Archdeacon's Jurisdiction The Authority of the Commissaries of Bishops is only in some certain place of the Diocess and some certain causes of the Jurisdiction limited unto them by the Bishops for which reason the Law calls them Officiales Foraneos quasi Officiales astricti cuidam foro Dioeceseos tantum Gloss in Clem. de Rescript And by the Canons and Constitutions Ecclesiastical no person may be a Commissary or Official under the Age of 26 years being at least a Master of Arts or Bachelor of Law Yet in the Argument of Buries Case for a Divorce the 5 Rep. 98. there was cited 35 Eliz. B. R. rot 605. That if a Lay-man be made a Commissary by the Bishop it is good until it be undone by Sentence although that the Canon says That he ought to be a Doctor or a Bachelor of Divinity But 21 H. 8. hath limited That a Doctor of the Civil Law may be a Commissary 16. Where a Commissary citing many persons of several Parishes to appear at his Visitation-Court Excommunicated them for not Appearing a Prohibition was granted because the Ordinary hath not
the Bishoprick of Winchester contra novi Concilii statuta as the same Author reporteth And this because succeeding Popes had broken Pope Vrban's promise Touching the not sending of Legates into England unless the King should require it And in the time of the next succeeding King Stephen the Pope gained Appeals to the Court of Rome For in a Synod at London Conven'd by Hen. Bishop of Winchester the Pope's Legate it was Decreed That Appeals should be made from Provincial Councils to the Pope Before which time Appellationes in usu non erant saith a Monk of that time donec Henricus Winton Episcopus malo suo dum Legatus esset crudeliter intrusit Thus did the Pope usurp Three main points of Jurisdiction upon Three several Kings after the Conquest for of King William Rufus he could win nothing viz. upon the Conquerour the sending of Legates or Commissioners to hear and determine Ecclesiastical Causes Upon Hen. 1. the Donation and Investures of Bishopricks and other Benefices and upon King Stephen the Appeals to the Court of Rome And in the time of King H. 2. the Pope claimed exemption of Clerks from the Secular Power 2. The high Court of Convocation is called the Convocation of the Clergy and is the highest Court Ecclesiastical where the whole Clergy of both Provinces are either present in Person or by their Representatives They commonly meet and sit in Parliament-time consisting of Two parts viz. the Upper-house where the Archbishops and Bishops do sit and the Lower-house where the Inferiour Clergy do sit This Court hath the Legislative power of making Ecclesiastical Laws is commonly called a National Synod Conven'd by the King 's Writ directed to the Archbishop of each Province for summoning all Bishops Deans Archdeacons Cathedrals and Collegiate Churches assigning them the time and place in the said Writ But one Proctor sent for each Cathedral and Collegiate Church and two for the Body of the inferiour Clergy of each Diocess may suffice The higher House of Convocation or the House of Lords Spiritual for the Province of Canterbury consists of 22 Bishops whereof the Archbishop is President the Lower-house or House of Commons Spiritual consisting of all the Deans Archdeacons one Proctor for every Chapter and two for the Clergy of each Diocess in all 166 persons viz. 22 Deans 24 Prebendaries 54 Archdeacons and 44 Clerks representing the Diocesan Clergy Both Houses debate and transact only such matters as his Majesty by Commission alloweth concerning Religion and the Church All the Members of both Houses of Convocation have the same priviledges for themselves and Menial Servants as the Members of Parliament have The Archbishop of York at the same time and in the like manner holds a Convocation of all his Province at York constantly corresponding debating and concluding the same matters with the Provincial Synod of Canterbury The Antiquity of this Court of Convocation is very great for according to Beda St. Augustine An. 686. assembled in Council the Britain Bishops and held a great Synod The Clergy was never assembled or called together at a Convocation by other Authority than by the King 's Writ Vid. Parl. 18 E. 3. nu 1. Inter Leges Inae An. Dom. 727. A Convocation of the Clergy called Magna servorum Dei frequentia The Jurisdiction of the Convocation is only touching matters meerly Spiritual and Ecclesiastical wherein they proceed juxta Legem Divinam Canones Sanctae Ecclesiae The Lord Coke cites some Ancient Records to prove that the Court of Convocation did not meddle with any thing concerning the Kings Temporal Laws of the Land and thence inferrs That the Statute of 25 H. 8. cap. 19. whereby it is provided That no Canons Constitution or Ordinance should be made or put in execution within this Realm by Authority of the Convocation of the Clergy which were contrariant or repugnant to the King's Prerogative Royal or the Customes Laws and Statutes of this Realm is but declaratory of the old Common Law And by the said Act the Court of Convocation as to the making of new Canons is to have the King's License as also his Royal Assent for the putting the same in execution But towards the end of that Act there is an express Proviso that such Canons as were made before that Act which be not contrariant nor repugnant to the King's Prerogative the Laws Statutes or Customes of the Realm should be still used and executed as they were before the making of that Act. And if any Cause shall depend in contention in any Ecclesiastical Court which shall or may touch the King his Heirs or Successors the party grieved shall or may appeal to the Upper-house of Convocation within fifteen days after Sentence given Remarkable are the Constitutions of Claringdon in the time of King H. 2. occasioned by the Popes claiming Exemption of Clerks from the Secular power so contended for by Thomas Becket then Archbishop of Canterbury against the King as occasioned a convening a Common Council as well of the Bishops as of the Nobility at Claringdon in the time of H. 2. wherein they revived and re-established the Ancient Laws and Customes of the Kingdom for the Government of the Clergy and ordering of Causes Ecclesiastical The principal Heads or Articles whereof were these viz. 1 That no Bishop or Clerk should depart the Realm without the King's License and that such as obtained License should give Sureties That they should not procure any dammage to the King or Realm during their absence in Foreign parts 2 That all Bishopricks and Abbies being void should remain in the Kings hands as his own Demesns until he had chosen and appointed a Prelate thereunto and that every such Prelate should do his Homage to the King before he be admitted to the place 3 That Appeals should be made in Causes Ecclesiastical in this manner viz. From the Archdeacon to the Ordinary from the Ordinary to the Metropolitan from him to the King and no farther 4 That Peter-Pence should be paid no more to the Pope but to the King 5 That if any Clerk should commit Felony he should be hanged if Treason he should be drawn and quartered 6 That it should be adjudged High Treason to bring in Bulls of Excommunication whereby the Realm should be cursed 7 That no Decree should be brought from the Pope to be executed in England upon pain of Imprisonment and Confiscation of Goods 3. Arches or alma Curia de Arcubus so called of Bow-Church in London by reason of the Steeple or Clochier thereof raised at the top with Stone-pillars in fashion like a Bow-bent Arch-wise in which Church this Court was ever wont to be held being the chief and most Ancient Court and Consistory of the Jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Canterbury which Parish of Bow together with twelve others in London whereof Bow is the chief are within the Peculiar Jurisdiction of the said Archbishop in Spiritual Causes and
exempts the Bishop from the Jurisdiction of his Metropolitan And for that the Cardinal fell into a Praemunire for which he purchased his Pardon which is sound among the Charters 4 H. 6. in Archivis Turr Lond. 6 7 Eliz. Dyer 233. a. Jo. Packhurst being elected to the Bishoprick of Norwich before that he was created Bishop obtained a Faculty or Dispensation from the Archbishop of Canterbury by force of the Statute of Faculties to retain a Parsonage which he had before in Commendam for Three years viz. Ã Festo Michaelis An. Dom. 1560. usque ad idem Festum in An. 1563. Before the first Feast of St. Michael Packhurst is created Bishop and afterwards he resigned the Benefice And the Question was whether that Benefice became void by the resignation of Packhurst or by his promotion to the Bishoprick And it was adjudged That the Church became void by his Resignation Which proves That by virtue of the said Faculty or Dispensation he continued Parson until he had Resign'd Vid. N. Br. 36. h. If a Parson who hath a Faculty or Dispensation to hold his Rectory be created a Bishop and after the Patron present another Incumbent who is Instituted and Inducted now the Bishop shall have a Spoliation against that Incumbent which proves that his real possession in the Parsonage always continued by virtue of the said Faculty or Dispensation And in this Case of a Commendam in Sir Joh. Davis Reports this difference is put between a Faculty to take a Benefice and a Faculty to retain a Benefice viz. That a Faculty granted to one who is not Incumbent to Take a void Benefice is void And a Faculty to one who is Incumbent of a Benefice to Retain the same Benefice is good By virtue of these Faculties Dispensations and Provisions from the Pope Edmond the Monk of Bury who was a Minister in the Court of King Ed. 3. had many Benefices as appears in the foresaid Case of the Bishop of St. Davids 11 H. 4. And Hankford said in the same Case fo 191. a. That by virtue of such Faculty one and the same person had been Abbot of Glastenbury and Bishop also of another Church simul semel and had the Possessions and Dignity of both at the same time Likewise Hen. Chichley who was afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury being a Prebend in the Cathedral Church of Sarum was elected Bishop of St. Davids and before his Consecration the Pope reciting by his Bull that he was elected Bishop of St. Davids granted him a Faculty and power to hold and enjoy all his other Benefices till the Pope should otherwise order c. Vid. Nov. Decis Rot. 331. And that these Faculties or Dispensations to hold Benefices in Commendam were granted in the Court of Rome in the time of King H. 5. appears in Lindw de Praeb c. Audistis ver Dispensatione And although in case of Hen. Beauford aforesaid it was held That the Dispensation came too late it being granted after the Bishop was created Cardinal yet afterwards in the time of King H. 8. Cardinal Wolsey having before he was created Cardinal obtained a Bull from the Pope to retain the Archbishoprick of York as perpetual Administrator and the Abbey of St. Albans in perpetuam Commendam he held both during his life by virtue of the said Faculty or Dispensation Vid. 27 H. 8. 15. b. By these Presidents and Authorities it is evident That before the making of the foresaid Statute of Faculties such Dispensations were had and obtained at the Court of Rome to hold in Commendam Ecclesiastical Benefices in England But the Truth is as in the foresaid Case de Commenda Davis Rep. such Faculties or Dispensations granted by the Pope touching Ecclesiastical Benefices in England were ever contrary to the Law of the Realm for it was a meer usurpation on the Crown of England before the Statutes made against Provisors And these Statutes were made in declaration of the Common Law in that point 12 Ed. 2. Fitz. Qua. Imp. 169. 19 Ed. 2. Eitz Qua non admisit 7. 15 Ed. 3. Fitz. Qua. Imp. 160. 21 Ed. 3. 40. 11 H. 4. 230. a. It is also meet to be known That long before King H. 8. the Statute of 16 R. 2. and divers other Laws against Provisors and Appeals to Rome and the Popes Usurpation upon the Rights of the Crown of England were made well-nigh as severe as any since The first encroachment of the Bishop of Rome upon the Liberties of the Crown of England was made in the time time of King William the Conqueror For before that time the Pope's Writ did not run in England his Bulls of Excommunication and Provision came not thither nor were any Citations or Appeals made from thence to the Court of Rome Eleutherius the Pope within less than two hundred years after Christ writes to Lucius the Brittish King and calls him God's Vicar within his Kingdom Pelagius the Monk of Bangor about An. 400. being cited to Rome refused to appear upon the Pope's Citation affirming That Britain was neither within his Diocess nor his Province And when about the year 600 Augustine the Monk was sent by Gregory the Great into England to Convert the Saxons the Brittish Bishops then in Wales regarded neither his Commission nor his Doctrine as not owing any duty to nor having any dependence on the Court of Rome but still retained their Ceremonies and Traditions which they received from the East-Church upon the first plantation of the Faith in that Island And though Ina the Saxon King gave the Peter-pence to the Pope partly as Alms and partly in recompence of a House erected in Rome for English Pilgrims yet certain it is that Alfred Aethelstane Edgar Edmond Cauutus and Edward the Confessor and other Kings of the Saxon Race gave all the Bishopricks in England per Annulum Baculum 9. In the Case of Evans against Askwith it was agreed That the nature of a Dispensation is for to derogate and make void a Statute Canon or Constitution as to that which it prohibites as to the party and it is as an Exception as to him out of the Statute or Constitution It is said that a Dispensation is Provida Relaxatio mali prohibiti necessitate vel utilitate pensata And in the same Case it was also Resolved by all the Judges That the King hath power to Dispence with Statutes and Canons in force within this Realm By the very Common Law of right it was in the King for the Canons are the Ecclesiastical Laws of the Land and do not bind except they are received in the Realm as appears by the Statute of 25 H. 8. c. 21. And by the Statute of Merton touching one born before Marriage as by the Canon yet at Common Law he is Legitimate And 10 H. 7. 12. it is said That the King may Dispence with one to hold Two Benefices and it seems the Pope
Bishop of Rome had assumed or tooken upon him to be the Spiritual Prince or Monarch of all the World he attempted also to give Laws to all Nations as one real Mark or Signal of his Monarchy but they well knowing Quod ubi non est condendi authoritas ibi non est parendi necessitas did not impose their Laws at first peremptorily on all Nations without distinction but offered them timide precario And therefore he caused certain Rules in the first place to be collected for the Government of the Clergy only which he called Decreta and not Leges vel Statuta These Decrees were published in An. 1150. which was during the Reign of King Stephen And therefore what the Lord Coke observes in the Preface to the Eighth part of his Reports Quod Rogerus Bacon frater ille perquam Eruditus in Libro De impedimentis Sapientiae dicit Rex quidem Stephanus allatis Legibus Italiae in Angliam Publico Edicto prohibuit ne in aliquo detinerentur may probably be conjectured to be meant and intended of those Decrees which were then newly compiled and published Yet these Decrees being received and observed by the Clergy of the Western Churches only for the Eastern Church never received any of these Rules or Canons Kelw. Rep. 7 H. 8. fo 184 the Bishop of Rome attempted also to draw the Laity by degrees into obedience to these Ordinances and to that purpose in the first place he propounds certain Rules or Ordinances for Abstinence or days of Fasting to be observed as well by the Laity as the Clergy which were upon the first Institution thereof called by the mild and gentle name of Regationes as Marsilius Pat. lib. Defensor Pacis par 2. cap. 23. hath observed and thence it seems the Week of Abstinence a little before the Feast of Pentecost was called the Rogation-week that time of Abstinence being appointed at the beginning by that Ordinance which was called Rogatio and not Praeceptum vel Statutum Now when the Laity out of their devotion had received and obeyed these Ordinances of Abstinence then the Bishop of Rome proceeds further De una praesumptione ad aliam transivit Romanus Pontifex as Marsil Pat. there says and made many Rescripts and Orders per Nomen Decretalium which were published in the year 1230. which was in the Fourteenth year of King H. 3. or thereabout Vid. Matth. Par. Hist mag 403. and these were made to bind all the Laity and Sovereign Princes as well as their Subjects in such things as concerned their Civil and Temporal Estates As that no Lay-man should have the Donation of an Ecclesiastical Benefice That no Lay-man should marry within certain Degrees out of the degrees limited by the Levitical Law That all Infants born before Marriage should be adjudged after Marriage Legitimate and capable of Temporal Inheritance That all Clerks should be exempt from the Secular power and others of the like nature But these Decretals being published they were not entirely and absolutely received and obeyed in any part of Christendom but only in the Pope's Temporal Territory which by the Canonists is called Patria obedientiae But on the other hand many of those Canons were utterly rejected and disobeyed in France and England and other Christian Realms which are called Patriae Consuetudinariae As the Canon which prohibited the Donation of Benefices per manum Laicam was ever disobeyed in England France the Kingdom of Naples and divers other Countries and Common-wealths And the Canon to make Infants Legitimate that were born before Marriage was specially rejected in England when in the Parliament held at Merton omnes Comites Barones una voce responderunt Nolumus Leges Angliae mutari quae hucusque usitatae sunt c. And the Canon which exempts Clerks from the Secular power was never fully observed in any part of Christendom Kelw. 7 H. 8. 181. b. which is one infallible Argument That these Ordinances had not their force by any Authority that the Court of Rome had to impose Laws on all Nations without their consent but by the approbation of the people which received and used them For by the same reason whereby they might reject one Canon they might reject all the other Vid. Bodin lib. 1. de Rep. cap. 8. where he saith That the Kings of France on the erection of all Universities there have declared in their Charters that they would receive the Profession of the Civil and Canons to use them at their discretion and not to be obliged by these Laws But as to those Canons which have been received accepted and used in any Christian Realm or Common-wealth they by such acceptation and usage have obtained the force of Laws in such particular Realm or State and are become part of the Ecclesiastical Laws of that Nation And so those which have been embraced allowed and used in England are made by such allowance and usage part of the Ecclesiastical Laws of England By which the interpretation dispensation or execution of these Canons being become Laws of England doth appertain sole to the King of England and his Magistrates within his Dominions and he and his Magistrates have the sole Jurisdiction in such cases and the Bishop of Rome hath nothing to do in the interpretation dispensation or execution of those Laws in England although they were first devised in the Court of Rome No more than the Chief Magistrate of Athens or Lacedemon might claim Jurisdiction in the Ancient City of Rome for that the Laws of the XII Tables were thither carried and imported from those Cities of Greece and no more than the Master of New-Colledge in Oxford shall have Command or Jurisdiction in Kings-Colledge of Cambridge for that the private Statutes whereby Kings-Colledge is governed were for the most part borrowed and taken out of the Foundation-Book of New-Colledge in Oxford And by the same reason the Emperour may claim Jurisdiction in Maritime causes within the Dominions of the King of England for that we have now for a long time received and admitted the Imperial Law for the determination of such Causes Vid. Cawdries Case Co. par 5. and Kelw. Rep. 184. a. Now when the Bishop of Rome perceived that many of his Canons were received and used by divers Nations of Christendom he under colour thereof claimed to have Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in every Realm and State where these Canons were received and sent his Legates with several Commissions into divers Kingdoms to hear and determine Causes according to these Canons which Canons although neither the Pope nor his Ministers at the first venting and uttering thereof dared to call Laws Ne committerent crimen Laesae Majestatis in Principes as Marâ—il Pat. lib. Defensor pacis par 2. cap. 23. observes who also says That these Canons being made by the Pope Neque sunt humanae Leges neque divinae sed documenta quaedam Narrationes yet when he perceived that these Canons were received allowed
consent of Five others of the said Commissioners his Companions and namely which Deprived him It was not sound that the Commissioners were the Natural born Subjects of the Queen as the Statute Enacts that they should be And it was moved That the Deprivation was void 1 Because that whereas the Commission is to them or any Three of them of which the said Bishop to be one amongst others it ought to have been the Sentence of them all according to the Authority given to them which is equal and not of one with the assent of the other 2 Because it is not found that the Commissioners are the Natural born Subjects of the Queen as by the words of the Statute they should be 3. Because the punishment which the Statute provides for those of the Ministry which deprave this Book is to lose the profits of all their Spiritual promotions but for a year and to be Imprisoned by the space of Six months and not to be Deprived till the Second offence after that he had been once committed and therefore to deprive him for the First offence was wrongful and contrary to the Statute But the whole Court for the Form of the Deprivation it is that which is used in the Ecclesiastical Courts which alwaies names the chief in Commission that are present at the beginning of the Sentence and for the other they mention them only as here but of their assent and consent to it and in such cases we ought to give credit to their Form and therefore it is not to be compared to an Authority given at Common Law by Commission And it is to be intended that the Commissioners were the Natural born Subjects of the Queen unless the contrary appear But here at the beginning it is found That the Queen Secundum tenorem effectum Actus praedict had granted her Commission to them in causis Ecclesiasticis and therefore it appeareth sufficiently that they were such as the Statute wills them to be And for the Deprivation they all agreed that it was good being done by Authority of the Commission for the Statute is to be understood where they prosecute upon the Statute by way of Indictment and not to restrain the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction being also but in the Affirmative And further by the Act and their Commission they may proceed according to their discretion to punish the Offence proved or confessed before them and so are the words of their Commission warranted by the Clause of the Act. And further the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction is saved in the Act. And all the Bishops and Popish Priests were deprived by virtue of a Commission warranted by this Clause in the Act. Vid. Hill 33 Eliz. Rot. 315. 10. Before many Noble-men Archbishops and Bishops and the Justices and Barons of the Exchequer 1 agreed That the Deprivation of Minsters for Non-conformity to the last Canons was lawful by the High Commissioners For by the Common Law the King hath such a power in Causes Ecclesiastical and it is not a thing de novo given by the First of Eliz. For that is Declaratory only c. and the King may delegate it to Commissioners And the King without a Parliament may make Constitutions for the Government of the Clergy and that such a Deprivation ex officio without Libel is good 2. That the Statute of 5 H. 5. c. 4. is to be intended when they proceed upon Libel and not when ex officio Read the Statute 3. When their Petition is Subscribed by a great number with intimation That if the King denies their Suit that many thousands of his Subjects shall be discontented That this is an Offence Finable at discretion and is near to Treason by raising Sedition by Discontent c. Vid. More 's Rep. Trin. 2 Jac. in the Star-Chamber 11. By the Statute of 13 Eliz. cap. 12. it is Enacted That every person c. to be Admitted to a Benefice with Cure except that within Two months after his Induction he publickly Read the said Articles in the same Church whereof he shall have Cure in the time of Common Prayer there with declaration of his unfeigned assent thereto c. shall be upon every such default ipso facto immediately deprived Then follows afterwards a Proviso relating to this clause viz. Provided alwaies That no Title to conferr or Present by Lapse shall accrue upon any Deprivation ipso facto but after Six months after Notice of such Deprivation given by the Ordinary to the Patron Thus the Patron immediately upon such Deprivation may Present if he please and his Clerk ought to be Admitted and Instituted but if he doth not no Lapse incurrs until after Six months after Notice of the Deprivation given to the Patron by the Ordinary who it seems is to supply the Cure until the Patron Present In the last Case of the Lord Dyer 23 El. it was Resolved That where a man having a Living with Cure under value accepted another under value also having no Qualification or Dispensation and was Admitted Instituted and Inducted into the Second but never Subscribed the Articles before the Ordinary as the Statute of 13 of El. requires Upon Question whether the First Living vacavit per mortem of him or not the Court Resolved That the First Living became vacant by his death and not by accepting the Second because he was never Incumbent of the Second for not Subscribing the Articles before the Ordinary whereby his Admission Institution and Induction into the Second Living became void as if they had never been This differs from the Case of not Reading the Articles within Two months after Induction For the not Subscribing the Articles makes that he never was Incumbent of the Second Living and consequently no cause of losing the First but the not Reading the Articles within Two months after Induction doth cause a deprivation of that whereof he was Incumbent For as an Incumbent that without qualification or dispensation doth take a Second Living doth thereby lose the First so the same Incumbent for not Reading the Articles within Two months after his Induction into the Second may lose the Second and thereby lose both viz. the First by taking a Second without qualification or dispensation and the Second for not Reading the Articles as aforesaid whereof he was Compleat Incumbent by Admission Institution and Induction of the Second Living full Two months before he lost it for not Reading the Articles 12. Parker being Parson of a Church was deprived by the High Commissioners for Drunkenness and moved for a Prohibition but it was not granted and he was directed to have Action for the Tithe and upon that the validity of the Sentence shall be drawn in question If a man be Admitted Instituted and Inducted to a Church and afterwards is deprived for that he was Instituted contrary to the course of the Ecclesiastical Law such Sentence of deprivation is void at the Common Law for that it is
Men which belong to the Blessed Hill They abstained from things that have life and some of them from Marriage One Dosithens a Samaritan is supposed to be the first Founder of the Samaritam Heresies and the first among them that rejected the Prophets as not having spoken by the Holy Ghost There were four sects of Samaritan Hereticks according to Epiphanius each of them holding their different Heresies in some respects and having in other respects certain Heretical Tenents common to them all By all which premisses it is most evident that the Prince of Darkness and the Father of Lyes hath had in all Ages Nations and Churches his Emissaries to infect them with Heretical and Blasphemous Erros but the Gates or Power of Hell to this day never could nor to Eternity ever shall prevail against the Truth CHAP. XLI Of Councils Synods and Convocations 1. The several kinds of Councils and Synods 2. What Canons in force in the Realm of Primo Ed. 6. Also how the Canons entituled Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum became abortive 3. That part of the Canon Law is part of the Law of England 4. Convocation in England what how and by what Authority and for what ends conven'd also of what Members it doth consist with the Authority thereof 5. Convocations and Provincial Synods of very great Antiquity in England have been ever call'd by the Kings Writ their Priviledges 6. The Canons and Ecclesiastical Constitutions may not be repugnant either to the Kings Prerogative or to the Laws Statutes or Customes of this Realm 7. Lindwood's Method of Provincial Synods in this Realm and under what Archbishops 8. The four several kinds of Councils and Synods in general 9. A compendious Catalogue thereof when and where held by and under whom conven'd with the principal matters therein treated and determined 1. OF Councils or Synods there are four kinds viz. 1 Oecumenical as being called out divers Nations 2 National as out of divers Provinces both these kinds of Councils or Synods were ever assembled by Imperial Regal or Papal Authority 3 Provincial as out of divers Dioceses conven'd by Metropolitans or Patriarchs 4 Diocesan as out of one Diocese onely assembled by the Bishop thereof The frequent celebration of Synods the Council of Basil calls praecipuam agri Domini culturam Touching Synods vid. Duar. de Sacr. Eccl. minist et benefic 2. In the Reign of King Hen. 8. the Bishops and Clergy in the Convocation an 1532. oblig'd themselves neither to make nor execute any Canons or Constitutions Ecclesiastical but as they were thereto enabled by the Kings Authority it was by them desired by him assented unto and confirm'd in Parliament that all such Canons and Constitutions Synodal and Provincial as were before in use and neither repugnant to the word of God the Kings prerogative Royal or the known Laws of the Land should remain in force until a Review thereof were made by 30 persons of the Kings appointment which Review not having been made from that time to the first year of King Edward 6. All the said old Canons and Constitutions so restrained and qualified did then still remain in force as before they were For this consult the Act of Parliament of 25 H. 8. c. 1. And in the Third year of the said King Edward 6. there passed an Act in Parliament For enabling the King to nominate Eight Bishops and as many Temporal Lords and Sixteen Members of the Lower House of Parliament for Reviewing of such Canons and Constitutions as remained in force by virtue of the Statute made in the 25th year of King H. 8. and fitting them for the use of the Church in all times succeeding According to which Act the King directed a Commission to Archbishop Cranmer and the rest of the Persons whom he thought fit to nominate to that employment and afterwards appointed a Sub-Committee of Eight persons to prepare the Work and make it ready for the rest that it might be dispatch'd with the more expedition which said Eight persons were the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Goodrick Bishop of Ely Dr. Cox the Kings Almoner Peter Martyr Dr. in Divinity William May and Rowland Taylor Drs. of Laws John Lucas and Richard Goodrick Esquires by whom the Work was undertaken and digested fashioned according to the method of the Roman Decretals and called by the name of Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum c But not being Commissionated hereunto till the Eleventh of November in the year 1551. they either wanted time to Communicate to the chief Commissioners by whom it was to be presented to the King or found the King encumber'd with more weighty Affairs than to attend the perusal thereof And so the King dying before he had given life unto it by his Royal Assent and Signiture the design miscarried and never since thought fit to be resumed in the following Times by any of those who have had the Government of the Church or were concerned in the honour and safety thereof 3. It is asserted by good Authority That if the Canon Law be made part of the Law of this Realm then it is as much the Law of the Land and as well and by the same Authority as any other part of the Law of the Land Likewise in the Case of Shute against Higden touching Voidance of a Former Benefice by being Admitted and Instituted into a Second and that by the Ancient Canon Law received in this Kingdom This says the same Authority is the Law of the Kingdom in such cases And in the Case of Hill against Good the same Author doth further assert That a Lawful Canon is the Law of the Kingdom as well as an Act of Parliament And whatever is the Law of the Kingdom is as much the Law as any thing else is so for what is Law doth not suscipere magis minus Which Premisses though they may seem yet are not inconsistent with what Sr. Ed. Coke says viz. That the Laws of England are not derived from any Forein Law either Canon Civil or other but a special Law appropriated to this Kingdom That it may be said of its Law as of its situation Et penitus toto divisos Orbo Britannos 4 Convocation is the highest Ecclesiastical Court or Assembly called and convened in time of Parliament by the Kings Writ directed to the Archbishops consisting of all the Clergy of both Provinces either Personally or Representatively present in the Upper House of the Archbishops and Bishops and the Lower House of the other Clergy or their Proctors chosen and appointed to appear for Cathedral or other Collegiate Churches and for the Common Clergy of every Diocess with a Prolocutor of each House and President of the Convocation for the Province of Canterbury to consult of matters Ecclesiastical and thereon to Treat Agree Consent and Conclude as occasion requires on certain Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical to be ratified and confirmed by the Royal Assent They were Anciently called
Church-gemote Int. Leges H. 1. c. 8. The Convocation is under the power and Authority of the King 21 Ed. 4. 45. b. Assembled only by the Kings Writ 13 Ed. 3. Rot. Parl. M. 1. vid. Stat. 25 H. 8. c. 19. The King having directed his Writ therein assigning the time and place to each of the Archbishops to the effect aforesaid the Archbishop of Canterbury doth thereupon direct his Letters to the Bishop of London as his Dean Lindw Provin Sec. 1. de Poenis ver Tanquam in Gloss First Citing himself peremptorily then willing him to Cite in like manner all the Bishops Deans Archdeacons Cathedral and Collegiate Churches and generally all the Clergy of his Province to the Place at the day in the said Writ prefixed withal directing that one Proctor for every Cathedral or Collegiate Church and two for the other Clergy of each Diocess may suffice In pursuance whereof the Bishop of London directs his Letters accordingly willing them to certifie the Archbishop the Names of all such as shall be so Monished by them in a Schedule annexed to their Letters Certificatory whereupon the Cathedral and Collegiate Churches and the other Churches having Elected their Proctors it is certified to the Bishop who makes due Returns thereof which method is likewise observed in the other Province of York It is said That these Proctors anciently had Place and Vote in the Lower House of Parliament a good expedient for the maintenance and preservation of the Liberties of the Church The Prolocutor of the Lower House of Convocation is immediately at the first Assembly by the motion of the Bishops chosen by that Lower House and presented to the Bishops as their Prolocutor by whom they intend to deliver their Resolutions to the higher House and to have their own House specially ordered and governed His Office is to cause the Clerk to call the Names of the Members of that House as oft as he shall see cause likewise to see all things propounded to be read by him to gather the Suffrages or Votes and the like Trin. 8 Jac. It was Resolved by the two Chief Justices and divers other Justices at a Committee before the Lords of Parliament concerning the Authority of a Convocation 1 That a Convocation cannot Assemble without the Assent of the King 2 That after their Assembling they cannot conferr to constitute any Canons without License del Roy. 3 When upon Conference they conclude any Canons yet they cannot execute any of them without the Royal Assent 4 They cannot execute any after Royal Assent but with these Limitations viz. 1 That they be not against the Kings Prerogative 2 Nor against Statute Law 3 Nor against the Common Law 4 Nor against the Customes of the Realm All which appears by 25 H. 8. c. 19. 19. Ed. 3. Title Quare non Admisit 7. 10. H. 7. 17. Merton cap. 9. By 2 H. 6. 13. a Convocation may make Constitutions to bind the Spiritualty because they all in person or by Representation are present but not the Temporalty Q. And 21 Ed. 4. 47. the Convocation is Spiritual and so are all their Constitutions Vid. The Records in Turri 18 H. 8. 8 Ed. 1. 25 Ed. 1. 11 Ed. 2. 15 Ed. 2. Prohibitio Regis ne Clerus in Congregatione sua c. attemptet contra jus seu Coronam c. By which it appears that they can do nothing against the Law of the Land or the Kings Prerogative 5. The word Convocation and the word Synod are rather words of two Languages than things of two significations for although they have different derivations the former from the Latin the other from the Greek yet in effect they both center in the same thing Convocation à Convocando because they are called together by the Kings Writ It is of very great Antiquity according to Sir Edward Coke who mentions out of Mr. Bede and other Authors and ancient Records such as were nigh a thousand years since and more expresly of one great Synod held by Austins Assembling the Britain Bishops in Council An. 686. And affirms That the Clergy was never Assembled or called together at a Convocation but by the Kings Writ And in the year 727. there was a Convocation of the Clergy called Magna Servorum Dei frequentia It was by the assistance and authority of Ethelbert the first Christian King of Kent that Austin called the aforesaid Assembly of the British Bishops and Doctors that had retained the Doctrine of the Gospel to be held in the borders of the Victians and West-Saxons about Southampton as supposed to which resorted as Mr. Bede says Seven Bishops and many other Learned Divines but this Synod or Convocation suddenly brake up without any thing done or resolved This Assembly was conven'd for determining the time for the Celebration of Easter touching which the Controversie continuing no less than 90 years after was at last concluded at another Convocation purposely called at Whitby by the Authority of Oswy King of Northumberland and whereof the Reverend Cedda newly Consecrated Bishop was Prolocutor and King Oswy himself present at the Assembly Likewise about the year 1172. at Cassils in Ireland a Convocation was held by Authority of King H. 2. soon after he had Conquered that Island which Convocation was for the Reformation of the Irish Church where amongst many other Constitutions it was Decreed That all the Church-Lands and all their Possessions should be altogether free from the Exaction of Secular men and that from thenceforth all Divine things should be handled in every part of Ireland in such sort as the Church of England handleth them Likewise about the year 1175. at London a Synod or Convocation was held at which King H. 2. was present where among other Canons and Constitutions it was both by Authority of the King and Synod decreed That every Patron taking a Reward for any Presentation should for ever lose the Patronage thereof Which together with other Canons then made for the better government of the Church of England were Published by Richard Archbishop of Canterbury with the Kings Assent Likewise a Provincial Synod was held at Oxford by Stephen Langton Archbishop of Canterbury under King H. 3. about the year 1222. for Reformation of the Clergy with many others in subordination to the Laws of the Land One special Priviledge of the Convocation appears by 8 H. 6. cap. 1. All the Clergy from henceforth to be called to the Convocation by the Kings Writ and their Servants and Familiars shall for ever hereafter fully use and enjoy such liberty and Immunity in coming tarrying and returning as the Great men and Commonalty of the Realm of England called or to be called to the Kings Parliament have used or ought to have or enjoy 8 H. 6. In Parliamento Statutum est ut Praelati atque Clerici câ—rumque Famulatus cum ad Synodos accesserint iisdem Privilegiis ac
Immunitatibus gaudeant quibus Milites Burgenses Parliamenti Ant. Brit. fo 284. nu 30. 6. The Jurisdiction of the Convocation in this Realm though relating to matters meerly Spiritual and Ecclesiastical yet is subordinate to the establish'd Laws of the Land it being Provided by the Statute of 25 H. 8. c. 19. That no Canons Constitutions or Ordinances shall be made or put in execution within this Realm by Authority of the Convocation of the Clergy repugnant to the Prerogative Royal or to the Customes Laws or Statutes of this Realm To the same effect was that of 9 Ed. 1. Rot. Parl. Memb. 6. Inhibitio Archiepiscopo omnibus Episcopis aliis Praelatis apud Lambeth Conventuris ne aliquid statuant in praejudicium Regis Coronam vel dignitatem For although the Archbishop and the Bishops and the rest of the Clergy of his Province Assembled in a Synod have power to make Constitutions in Spiritual things yet they ought to be Assembled by Authority of the King and to have as aforesaid his Royal Assent to their Constitutions which being had and obtained the Canons of the Church made by the Convocation and the King without Parliament shall bind in all matters Ecclesiastical as well as an Act of Parliament as was Resolved in Bird and Smiths Case Although the Saxons who founded and endowed most of our Churches and made many good Laws in reference to the Jurisdiction power and priviledges thereof yet the Royal Prerogative with the Laws and Customes of the Realm were ever so preserved as not to be invaded thereby King AEthelbert the first Saxon King King Ina AEthelstane Edmund Edgar and King Kanute all these made Laws in favour of the Church but none of them ever entrenched on the Prerogative of the Crown or on the Laws or Customes of the Realm nor any of those ancient Church-Laws ever made without the Supream Authority to ratifie and confirm the same 7. The Laws and Constitutions whereby the Ecclesiastical Government is supported and the Church of England governed are the General Canons made by General Councils also the Arbitria Sanctorum Patrum the Decrees of several Archbishops and Bishops the Ancient Constitutions made in our several Provincial Synods either by the Legates Otho and Othobon or by several Archbishops of Canterbury All which by the 25 H. 8. are in force in England so far as they are not repugnant to the Kings Prerogative the Laws and Customes of England Also the Canons made in Convocations of Later times as Primo Jacobi Regis and confirmed by his Regal Authority Also in some Statutes Enacted by Parliament touching Ecclesiastical affairs together with divers Customes not written but in use beyond the memory of Man and where these fail the Civil Law takes place Among the Britain Councils according to Bishop Prideaux his Synopsis of Councils Edit 5. those amongst the rest are of most remark viz. At Winchester in King Edgars time under Dunstane at Oxford by Stephen Langton Archbishop of Canterbury at Claringdon under King Henry the Second The Council under King Edward the 6 th in which the 39 Articles of the English Confession was concluded and confirmed The Synod under the same King from which we receive the English Liturgy which now we have composed by Seven Bishops and Four Doctors and confirmed by the publick consent of the Church which as also the said 39 Articles the succeeding Princes Queen Eliz. King James and King Charles ratified and commended to Posterity At London a Synod in which 141 Canons or Constitutions relating to the pious and peaceable Government of the Church presented to King James by the Synod and confirmed by his Regal Authority and at Perth in Scotland where were Articles concerning Administring the Sacrament to the Sick Private Baptism where Necessity requires Confirmation admitting Festivals Kneeling at the Receiving the Sacrament and an allowance of Venerable Customes But de Concil Britan. vid. D. Spelman The Ancient Canons of the Church and Provincial Constitutions of this Realm of England were according to Lindwood the Canonist who being Dean of the Arches compiled and explained the same in the time of King H. 6. made in this order or method and under these Archbishops of Canterbury viz. The Canons or Constitutions 1. Of Stephen Langton Cardinal Archbishop of Canterbury in the Council at Oxford in the year of our Lord 1222 who distinguish'd the Bible into Chapters 2. Of Otho Cardinal the Popes Legate in Anno 1236. on whose Constitutions John de Athon Dr. of Laws and one of the Canons of Lincoln did comment or gloss 3. Of Boniface Archbishop of Cant. 1260. 4. Of Othobon Cardinal of St. Adrian and Legate of the Apostolical Chair on whose Constitutions the said John de Athon did likewise Glossematize His Canons were made at London in Anno 1268. 5. Of John Peckham Archbishop of Canterbury at a Synod held at Reding An. 1279. 6. Of the same Peckham at a Synod held at Lambeth An. 1281. 7. Of Robert Winchelse Archbishop of Canterbury An. 1305. 8. Of Walter Reynold Archbishop of Canterbury at a Synod held at Oxford An. 1322. These Constitutions in some Books are ascribed to Simon Mepham but erroneously for the date of these Constitutions being An. 1322. the said Walter Reynold according to the Chronicle died in An. 1327. and was succeeded by Simon Mepham 9. Of Simon Mepham Archbishop of Cant. An. 1328. 10. Of John Stradford Archbishop An. 13 ... 11. Of Simon Islepe Archbishop An. 1362. 12. Of Simon Sudbury Archbishop An. 1378. 13. Of Tho. Arundel Archbishop at a Synod or Council held at Oxford An. 1408. 14. Of Henry Chichley Archbishop An. 1415. 15. Of Edmond Archbishop of Canterbury 16. Of Richard Archbishop of Canterbury The Dates of the Canons or Constitutions of these Two last Lindwood makes no mention by reason of the uncertainty thereof but withal says it is clear That Richard did immediately succeed the foresaid Stephen Langton and the said Edmond succeeded Richard Lindw de Poen c. ad haec infra in verb. Mimime admittatur If so then it was most probably Richard Wethershed who was Archbishop of Canterbury An. 1229. And St. Edmond Chancellor of Oxford who was Archbishop of Canterbury An. 1234. 8. Councils were either General or Oecumenical from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereunto Commissioners by the Emperours Authority were sent from all quarters of the World where Christ hath been preached Or National or Provincial or Particular by Bullenger called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such were the Councils of Gangra Neo-caesarea and many others commonly Assembled by Patriarchs and Bishops in some particular place of a Countrey The ends of these Councils chiefly were either for the suppression of Heresies the decision of Controversies the appeasing of Schisms or the Ordaining of Canons and Constitutions for decency of Order in the Church Vid. AElfrici Canones ad Wulfinum Episcopum Can. 33. where it is said That there were Four Synods
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
Causes to his own Cognizance Nolente Ordinario p. 19. Sect. 10. Whether he may Cite a man out of his own proper Diocess p. 100 c. Sect. 3. The great Antiquity Precedency Priviledges Style and Precincts of the Archbishop of Canterbury p. 13. Sect. 1. He is the first Peer in England next to the Blood Royal. ibid. Anciently he had Primacy as well over all Ireland as England p. 20. Sect. 13. He was anciently styled Patriarcha orbis Britannici Pontifex ibid. He had some special marks of Royalty p. 21. Sect. 13. Several Priviledges peculiar to him ibid. Whether he had concurrent Jurisdiction in Inferiour Diocesses within his Province p. 18. Sect. 9. That See kept Four years by King William Rufus without an Archbishop p. 24. Sect. 3. In what respects the Archbishop of Canterbury hath some power over the Archbishop of York p. 18. Sect. 9. The Original of the Metropolitan See of York p. 14. Sect. 2. The Antiquity Precedency Style and Precincts of the Archbishop of York ibid. Anciently an Archbishop of London p. 17. Sect. 7. Archâ—s-Court the higâ—â— Consistory p. 83. Sect. 6. Why so called p. 100. Sect. 3. The great Antiquity Jurisdiction and decent order 〈…〉 5. 〈…〉 and what he is p. 60. Sect. 1. How he 〈…〉 Office and Jurisdiction p. 61. Sect. 1. The 〈◊〉 kinds of Archdeacons and how many in England p. 61. Sect. 2. How they are distinguished by the Canon Law p. 65. Sect. 10. Whence their Pâ—rer is derived p. 62. Sect. 3. The Canon touching 〈…〉 to their Visitations p. 64. Sect. 9. Whether they have Power of Visitation Jure communi p. 63 67. Sect. 7. What Remedy in case an Archdeacon dâ—th refuse to swear the Church-Wardens elect p. 164. Sect. 9. Whether an Archdeaconry be understood as a Benefice with Cure p. 62. Sect. 5. and p. 200. Sect. 13 Arch-Flamins what and how many anciently in England and where p. 16. Sect. 4. They were succeeded by as many Archbishopricks ibid. Arch-Presbyter what p. 56. Sect. 7 Arms or Coat-Armour on Monuments or Church-windows not to be defaced or demolished p. 138 139. Sect. 5 Arrests whether they may de executed on Christmas-Day p. 115. Sect. 12. Whether executable on Clergy-men in time of Divine service p. 141. Sect. 8. Articles 39 of Religion what kind of subscription thereunto required p. 163. Sect. 8. Articles of Religion under King Ed. 6. p. 8. Sect. 14. The like under Q. Eliz. ibid. Articles of Enquiry on a Jure Patronatus p. 180. Sect. 2. Articles before the high Commissioners at York against the Vicar of Hallifax p. 189. Sect. 9. Articuli Cleri and Circumspecte agatis what p. 639. Assault on a Clerk whether cognizable before the Ordinary p. 115. Sect. 12. Assaults in the Church or Church-yard are not to be retaliated p. 139. Sect. 5 Assent to the Articles of Religion what good or not within the intent of the Statute p. 163. Sect. 8. Assent of the Ordinary requisite to the Foundation of a Church p. 207. Sect. 5. Assent of the Patron requisite to the Vnion and Appropriation of Churches p. 109. Sect. 8. Assise de utrum what and why so called p. 644. Sect. 2. Atturney at Law he may not be elected Church-warden p. 164. Sect. 9. Audience or Court of Audience what it was where kept and what matters it took Cognizance of p. 106. Sect. 7. Aumone or Frank Almoigne a description thereof it 's use and end p. 338. Sect. 4. AVoidance what 283. Sect. 1. Twofold ibid. What difference between Avoidance and Next Avoidance p. 284. Sect. 2. How many ways it may be p. ibid. Sect. 3. In what Court cognizable p. 122. Sect. 21. The difference between the Common and Canon Law in reference to Avoidances p. 286. Sect. 8. The grant of the Next Avoidance during an Avoidance is void p. 219. Sect. 24. Whether the grant of a Next Avoidance good without Deed p. 255. Sect. 4. Avowe or Advowe what p. 181. Sect. 5. Austin whether the first that preached the Gospel in England p. 13. Sect. 1. Whether the first Archbishop of Canterbury p. ibid. Where buried p. 16. Sect. 4. Award or Arbitrement pleaded in Barr of Tithes in the Ecclesiastical Court and refused no ground for a Prohibition p. 122 123. Sect. 25. B. BAIL whether it may be taken for one apprehended by a Capias De Excom capiend p. 651. Sect. 25. Banns what whence derived how published by whom dispensed with and the legal Requisites in order to such Dispensations p. 465. Bark of Trees what not Tithable p. 387. Barren Land the Law touching the Tithes thereof p. 387. c. Bastard whence that word and who properly such p. 478. Sect. 1. and p. 486. Sect. 16 18. How differenced from Mulier at Common Law p. 478. Sect. 2. How distinguish'd at the Civil Law p. 480. Sect. 5. How that Law computes the time of a Womans going with Child p. 482. Sect. 7. How computed at the Common Law p. 482 Sect. 9. and p. 484. Sect. 12. Bastardy how distinguish'd at Common Law p. 478 479. Sect. 3. It is Triable by the Certificate of the Bishop p. 122. Sect. 21. How prosecuted in Courts of Justice p. 480. Sect. 6. and p. 484. 485. Sect. 13. How punished p. 438. Sect. 10. and p. 485. Sect. 14. Difference between the Common Civil and Ecclesiastical Law in reference to Bastardy p. 487. Sect. 19. Baud whether and where Actionable for calling one so p. 519 520. Sect. 11. and p. 520. Sect. 13. and p. 523. 20. Beauford Henry Great Vncle to King H. 6. and Bishop of Winchester made Cardinal how he thereby fell into a Premunire p. 110. Sect. 8. Becket Archbishop of Canterbury his contention with King Henry 2. p. 100. Sect. 2. Beech-Trees how and in what Case Tithable or not p. 389. Bees in what kind they pay Tithes p. ibid. Benefice Ecclesiastical the true definition thereof p. 200. 12. The reasons of that definition p. ibid. Whether Ecclesiastical Dignities fall under the notion of Benefices p. 200. Sect. 13. Of what a Benefice consists p. 200 201. Sect. 14. No Contract to be made for it nor is it vendible p. 201. Sect. 15. Six Signs or Requisites of an Ecclesiastical Benefice p. ibid. The common distinction thereof p. 201. Sect. 16. Beneficio primo Ecclesiastico habendo what that Writ imports p. 647. Sect. 9. Birch-Trees whether Tithable after Twenty years growth p. 390. Bishop the derivation of that word and why so called p. 22. Sect. 1. Anciently he was the universal Incumbent of his Diocess p. 13. Sect. 1. Why called Ordinary p. ibid. Sect. 2. What things requisite to his Creation p. 25. Sect. 4. The form and manner of making Bishops ibid. and p. 26. and p. 50. Sect. 8. His interest and Authority in his several capacities p. 29 30. Sect. 9. Whether he may grant Letters of Institution out of his own proper Diocess and under any Seal other than his own Seal of Office
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
Clergy At Braga or Bracara in Portugal An. 610. under the Reign of Gundemarus King of Gethes assembled some Bishops of Gallicia Lusitania and of the Province of Lucensis whereby it was Ordained That every Bishop should visit the Churches of his Diocess That they should receive no Rewards for Ordination of the Clergy And that a Church builded for Gain and Contribution of the People redounding to the advantage of the Builder should not be Consecrated At Auxerre in France An. 613. assembled a number of Abbots and Presbyters with one Bishop and three Deacons In this Synod they damned Sorcery made many Superstitious Constitutions as touching Masses Burials Marriages Prohibition of Meats c. At Hispalis commonly called Civil La grand in Spain in the year 634. and in the 24 th year of the Emperour Heraclius a Council was assembled by Isidorus Bishop of Hispalis at the Command of King Sisebutus for suppression of the Heresie of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Branch of the Eutychian heresie and for the decision of some Questions touching the Bounds of their Dioceses At Toledo in Spain An. 639. under the Reign of Sisenandus King of Spain by the Kings Command were more than 70 Bishops and Presbyters Conven'd upon occasion of diversity of Ceremonies and Discipline in that Kingdom This was the Fourth Council at Toledo At Toledo in the First year of Chintilla King of the Gothes about the time of the Emperour Heraclions Reign a Fifth Council was held conven'd by Eugenius Bishop of Toledo In this Council nothing considerable was done but in reference to Annual Letanies and the appointment of Supplications for the King At Rome in the year 652. was a Council convened by Martinus Pope consisting of more than 100 Bishops occasioned by the Error of the Monothelites obstinately maintained by Paulus of Constantinople and countenanced by the impious Edict of the Emperour Constans The Constitutions and Decrees made in this Council tended to condemn those that denied the Trinity the Divine Unity in the Divine Nature the Manifestation of the Second Person of the Trinity and his Sufferings in the Flesh At Toledo in the year 653. a Sixth Council was held consisting of Fifty two Bishops whereof Eugenius Bishop of Toledo was President The occasion whereof was the Renovation of Old Heresies and Contradiction to precedent Councils The Fourth Canon of this Council is against Simony and the Eighteenth is against Rebellion At Toledo in the year 662. a Seventh Council is held of 4 Archbishops 50 Bishops and many Presbyters The First Canon of this Council is against Sedition and Treason By the Fourth Canon it is forbidden That Bishops in their Visitations should extort or oppress their Churches At Quinisext so termed by Balsemon the same year viz. 662. was held a Council which by Bede and many others is accounted an Erroneous Synod it was convened under Justinian the Second and Pope Sergius wherein the Fathers thought fit to supply the defect of the Fifth aud Sixth precedent Synods in reference to manners and Ecclesiastical Discipline for which reason they ratified 102 Canons in the Trullo of the Imperial Palace whence they are called Trullans These are rejected by such Latins whose consent went not to the stablishment thereof specially not empowr'd and authoriz'd thereto by the Pope In the 36 th Canon thereof the Patriarch of Constantinople is equalled to the Roman and in the 13 th Canon Matrimony is granted to the Clergy At Chalon in Burgandy by the Command of Clodoveus K. of France a Council of 44 Bishops assembled wherein the Canons of the Nicene Council had great approbation And it was Forbidden That Two Bishops should be Ordained in one City and Decreed That no Secular work should be done on the Lords Day At Rome in the time of Constantinus Pogonatus Emperour under the Popedom of Agatho was held a Council wherein it was Declared by the Suffrages of 125 Bishops That Two wills and Two operations were to be acknowledged in Christ and the Defenders of the Heresie of the Monothelites were condemned At Toledo in the year 671. an Eighth Council of 52 Bishops was assembled wherein were high Debates concerning Perjury At last it was Resolved That no Necessity obligeth a man to perform an unlawful Oath In this Council Marriage was utterly forbidden to Bishops and eating of Flesh in Lent At Toledo in the year 673. and in the Seventh year of Recesuvindus King of Gothes and by his Command were convened 16 Bishops which was the Ninth Council at that place and in which several Canons were made touching the Discipline of the Church At Toledo in the Eighth year of the said Kings Reign was the Tenth Council consisting of 21 Bishops who made some Decrees touching certain Festivals and others relating to the Clergy and removed Protamius Bishop of Bracara from his Office being convict of Adultery At Toledo in the Seventh year of Bamba King of Gothes 19 Bishops and Seven Abbots were assembled by the Kings Command wherein several Canons were made concerning Ecclesiastical Discipline At Bracara a Second Council was held the first according to Caranza wherein many old Opinions of the Priscilianists and Manichaeans concerning Prohibition of Marriage and Meats are condemned together with the Heresies of Samosatenus Photinus Cerdon and Marcion And in the 30 th Canon of this Council it was Ordained That no Poesie should be Sung in the Church except the Psalter of the Old Testament At Bracara in Spain in the time of Bombas King of Gothes another Synod of Eight Bishops was assembled wherein the Nicene Faith is again rehearsed In the Fifth Canon of this Synod it is Ordained That upon Festival days Reliques enclosed in an Ark shall be born on the Shoulders of the Levites as the Ark of God in the Old Testament was accustomed to be born At Constantinople in the year 680. in the Twelfth year of the Reign of Constantine Pogonatus a General Council was held Pope Agatho procuring it by his Legates In this Council were convened 150 Bishops they who reckon 270 or 286 do compute the Absent Romans and others consenting thereto the Emperour himself was President In this Council was discussed the Question touching the Wills and Actions of Christ Here were condemned the Monothelites Sergius Cyrus Pyrrhus Peter Paul Theodorus together with Pope Honorius who in the defence of Eutychianism pleaded that there was one only Will in Christ This Council confirmed the Canons not only of General but also of Particular foregoing Synods as of Antioch Laodicea and others It also added what was to be approved in the Orthodox Writings of the Fathers as appears by the Second Canon of this Council Vid. Paul Diacon in vit Constant At Toledo the Twelfth Council consisting of 33 Bishops with some Abbots and 13 of the Nobility assembled the first year of the Reign of Euringius to whom Bombas King of
the Gothes resigned his Royal Authority chusing rather to be Shaven than to wear a Crown and to enter into a Monastery than to fit on the Throne of Majesty This Council as to the Confession of Faith adhered to the Council of Nice and confirmed the Acts made in precedent Councils against the Jews Other Councils there were at Toledo under the Reigns of Euringius and Egista but not of such Remark as needs any apology for their omission At London in the year 712. under the Saxons Reign a Council was assembled at which the Popes Legate Bonifacius and the chief Prelate of England Brithwaldus was present The two grand Points treated in this Council were concerning the Worshipping of Images and Prohibiting Marriage to persons in Spiritual Orders At Constantinople about the same year of 712. a Council was called by the Emperour Philippicus for the undoing or the Sixth General Council wherein the Error of the Monothelites was condemned At Rome in the year 714. a Council was Assembled by Pope Gregory the Second whereat two Bishops of Britain were present Sedulius and Fergustus Most of the Canons made at this Council did concern Marriage Masses Sâ—rceries and the Mandates of the Apostolick Chair At Rome a great Council of 903 Bishops was assembled by Pope Gregory the Third having received a Mandate from the Emperour Leo for the Abolishing of Images In this Council was the Emperour Leo Excommunicated and deprived of his Imperial Dignity because he had disallowed the Worshipping of Images Now is the Popes Banner displaied against the Emperour which is the Forerunner of that Enmity which ensued between the Pope and the Emperours In France in the year 742. under the Reign of Charles the Great Zacharias the First being then Pope a National Council of the Bishops Presbyters and Clergy of France was assembled by Bonifacius Archbishop of Mentz according to the Mandate of King Charles This Council was called for Reformation of Abuses in that Countrey or rather to reduce it to a conformity unto the Rites of the Roman Church At Constantinople in the year 755. and the Thirteenth year of the Emperour Constantinus Copronymus a General Council of 338 Bishops was Assembled by the Emperours Command In this Council the Worshipping of Images was damned and the placing of them in Oratories and Temples as a Custome borrowed from the Pagans was forbidden yet in the 15 th and 17 th Canons of this Council the Invocation of Saints is allowed The Council of Constantinople is by some accounted two which others contract into one but the distinction it seems is manifest because the first is said to be celebrated under Father Leo Isaurus An. 730. The Second by Constantius Copronymus in the year 755 as aforesaid The one opposeth the Worshipping of Images and Reliques on which account both may be esteemed as one or at least united The first under Leo discovers Intercession of Saints to be imaginary and the Worshipping of Images meer Idolatry Germanus Patriarch of Constantinople and John Damascene and others too much inclined to Images are deprived of their Dignities Gregory the Third intercedes for Images in a Roman Anti-Synod in which he Excommunicated the Eastern with the mark of Heretical Image-breakers but this did not terrifie the said Constantine Copronymus from declaring himself to be an Image-breaker but assembled 338 Bishops at Constantinople as aforesaid over whom himself was President and persecuted the Maintainers of Images Some will have This and the Seventh Council as Occumenical but the Romans so abhorr'd it that for this Controversie about Images they denied their Subjection to the Greek Emperours whenc afterwards ensued the Western and Eastern Division never to be reconciled How well the Nicene Council corrected the Errors of this appears by the Decrees thereof At Francfurt in the year 794. a Council was convened but it is not agreed whether it was an Occumenical or Provincial Council the more Ancient Writers will have it to be Oecumenical because it was called by Charles the Great and Adrian the First and it consisted of at least 300 Bishops yet the latter Writers will have it Provincial because it seems not to favour Images The Reason of the convening of this Council was because Elipardus Archbishop of Toledo and Felix Vrgelitanus Bishop of Aurelia or Orleance in France preached That Christ was only the Adopted Son of God which Aquinas refutes 3. part q. 23. art 4. But Binius with Longus and others will have it that this Council or Synod confirmed the Opinion of the 2 d Nicene Council concerning the Adoration of Images which Bellarmine will not believe though he wishes it to be true At Nice in Bythinia in the year 788. a Council of 350 Bishops was assembled in which it was Ordained That the Image of Christ the Blessed Virgin Mary and of the Saints should not only be received into places of Adoration but also should be adored and worshipped At Frankford in the year 794. a great Council was assembled by Charles the Great King of France partly by reason of the Heretick Felix who called Christ the Adopted Son of God in his Humane Nature and was condemned in a Council at Ratisbone An. 742. partly also by reason of great Disputes that were in most places concerning the Worshipping of Images disallowed in the Council of Constantinople but allowed in the Second Council of Nice At Mentz in the year 813. by the Command of Carolus Magnus was Assembled a Council of 30 Bishops 25 Abbots with a great number of Priests Monks Counts and Judges about Reformation of the dissolute manners of Ecclesiastical and Lay-persons At Rhemes in the same year 813. a Council was Assembled by the Command of Charles the Great who not only called that Famous Council of Frankford An. 794. in which the Adoration of Images was condemned but also about one and the same time viz. An. 813. appointed Five National Councils to be convened in divers places for Reformation of the Clergy and Laity viz. at Mentz aforesaid this at Rhemes another at Tours a Fourth at Chalons and a Fifth at Aries In all which no opposition was made to the foresaid Council of Frankford nor was the Adoration of Images avowed in any of these Councils At Tours An. 813. at the Command as aforesaid of the Emperour Carolus Magnus a Council of many Bishops and Abbots was assembled for the Establishing of Ecclesiastical Discipline in Tours At Chalons An. 813. was the Fourth Council convened the same year under Charles the Great and by his Command for the Reformation of the Ecclesiastical state the Canons whereof for the most part are consonant to those made in the said former Councils under Charles the Great At Arles the same year of 813. wherein the Four preceding Councils were held another was convened by Command of Charles the Great wherein as to matters of Faith Church-Discipline Regulation of